Angelotti v. Town of Montclair

• Decision Date: 17 October 1932
• Docket Number: No. 43.,43.
• Parties: ANGELOTTI v. TOWN OF MONTCLAIR.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

162 A. 565

ANGELOTTI

v. TOWN OF MONTCLAIR.

No. 43.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 17, 1932.

Syllabus by the Court.

It is well settled that, in cases of certiorari, an adjudication of the Supreme Court on questions of fact is final, and will not be disturbed by this court, if it appears there was competent evidence upon which its conclusions could have been based.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceedings by Daniel Angelottl for writ of certiorari to be directed to the Town of Montclair, in Essex County. From a judgment dismissing the writ, the prosecutor appeals.

Affirmed.

Thomas Brunetto, of Newark, for appellant.

George S. Harris, of Montclair, for appellee.

HETFIELD, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing a writ of certiorari which was allowed the prosecutor-appellant by the Chief Justice, and argued before him as a single justice in accordance with section 5 of the Certiorari Act (1 Comp. St. 1910, p. 403, § 5). The prosecutor was a member of the police department of the town of Montclair, and on April 14, 1930, a complaint was preferred against him by the chief of police. Thereafter a hearing was had before the director of public safety, and the prosecutor was found guilty of three of the charges contained in the complaint, which, in substance, alleged that he failed to report to the chief of police, or officer in charge, information pertaining to places where gambling was conducted, as well as a violation of an ordinance relating to gambling houses, and that he entered the place in question, while in uniform, although he was not engaged in the discharge of his duties as a police officer at that time. The prosecutor was dismissed from the police department and compelled to forfeit all pay from March 81, 1930, to the date of the dismissal.

The first ground of appeal alleges, in effect, that the director of public safety of the town of Montclair was not vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the charges against the prosecutor. It is contended that the power to conduct such a hearing or trial is vested in the board of commissioners, and that no action had ever been taken by the board of commissioners in determining and assigning to the department of public safety the powers and duties to be performed by it. These identical questions were passed upon unfavorably to the prosecutor, and we think properly so, by the Supreme Court in the case of Mee v. Town of Montclair, 157 A. 447, 448, 9 N. J. Misc. 1208; the opinion in part reading: "The prosecutor, under point 1, attacks the jurisdiction of the director of public safety to try him; his point being that jurisdiction to try him rested with the town commissioners as a body."

But the town of...