Campbell v. Brennan
| Decision Date | 30 November 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 81.,81. |
| Citation | 143 A. 806 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. BRENNAN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Respondent held to have become a member of the police department on May 1, 1925, pursuant to chapter 212 of the Laws of 1920 (P. L p. 408), and consequently not affected by P. L. 1926, c. 324, p. 600, forbidding original appointment to the police of any one over 35 years of age.
Original quo warranto by the State, Edward L. Katzenbach, Attorney General, on the relation of William L Campbell, against George J. Brennan. Judgment for respondent.
Argued May term, 1928, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and KATZENBACH, JJ.
Cole & Cole, of Atlantic City, for relator.
Joseph B. Perskie, of Atlantic City, for respondent.
The information charges: That on or about March 7, 1927, the director of public safety of Atlantic City undertook to appoint respondent Brennan as a regular detective and a member of the police department of that city contrary to law, in that said Brennan was then above the age of 35 years; such appointment being forbidden by chapter 324 of the Laws of 1926 (P. L p 600). To this respondent pleaded that prior to the act of 1926, to wit, on May 1, 1925, he was duly appointed a clerk in the police department of Atlantic City and received his pay from the police budget or police pay roll thereof, and immediately after appointment "assumed his duties as head of the vice squad of the police department," and performed his duties as head of the vice squad as clerk to the chief of police, until his appointment on March 7, 1927, as detective in the department. That on May 1, 1925, the law applicable was chapter 184 of 1920 (P. L. p. 369), an amendment to Municipalities Act of 1917 prescribing an age limit of 55 years for appointees, and that respondent was then 46 years of age, and that chapter 212 of the Laws of 1920 (P. L. p. 408) expressly prescribes that, in cities other than those of the first class, clerics of the bureau of detectives or detective department having charge of the filing and docketing of police records of said bureau, and clerks or secretaries to the chief of police, "shall be members of the police force of such city." Section 1.
Atlantic City is within the purview of this act. The deduction from these premises is that the appointment of March 7, 1927, was not an original appointment, but a promotion in the force, and unaffected by the act of 1926. This is challenged by the demurrer.
It is conceded that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. Bd. Of Fire
...Borough of Bradley Beach, 87 N.J.L. 391, 94 A. 316; Murphy v. Freeholders of Hudson County, 92 N.J.L., 244, 104 A. 304; Campbell v. Brennan, 105 N.J.L. 11, 143 A. 806; Speck v. Fairview, 145 A. 618, 7 N.J. Misc. 410; Harcher v. Hurley, 116 N.J.L. 18, 181 A. 309; Chapman v. Frobisher, 123 N.......
-
Speck v. Borough of Fairview
...A. 304. It is cited here particularly for the holding that a borough marshal is a public officer. The very recent case of Campbell v. Brennan (N. J. Sup.) 143 A. 806, which involved the situation here presented of an age limit to appointments, was in quo warranto, and the Supreme. Court exp......
-
Hayes v. Atl. City
...in the department, and this did not entitle her to the status of a policewoman. It is contended that the case of Campbell v. Brennan (N. J. Sup.) 143 A. 806, interpreting chapter 212 of the Laws of 1920 (P. L. p. 408), is sufficient to give the prosecutrix status. This act provides that "in......