Colgarrt v. Bd. of St. & Water Com'rs of City of Newark

• Decision Date: 15 January 1914
• Citation: 89 A. 789,85 N.J.L. 583
• Parties: COLGARRT et al. v. BOARD OF STREET & WATER COM'RS OF CITY OF NEWARK.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

89 A. 789

85 N.J.L. 583

COLGARRT et al.

v. BOARD OF STREET & WATER COM'RS OF CITY OF NEWARK.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 15, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Certiorari by John Colgarry and others to review certain proceedings of the Board of Street and Water Commissioners of the City of Newark. From, a judgment affirming the proceedings of the Board, the prosecutors appeal. Affirmed.

Arthur F. Egner, of Newark (Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, on the brief), for appellants.

Herbert Boggs, of Newark, for appellee.

WALKER, Ch. This case presents an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court affirming certain proceedings of the board of street and water commissioners of the city of Newark, which were before that court on certiorari.

Certain persons employed by the board, and whose positions and employments were abolished, sued out a writ of certiorari to review the legality of the resolution which deprived them of their employment. The resolution brought up recites that certain named employes are unnecessary to the efficient and economical administration of the city, within the jurisdiction of the board, and then provides that those employes be placed on the suspended list, and that their respective salaries and wages cease, and that the several positions and employments held by them respectively be abolished and terminated.

The employes, thus removed, claim the protection of the civil service act (P. L. 1908, p. 235, § 24), which provides that certain employes shall not be removed, discharged, or reduced in pay or position, or otherwise discriminated against, because of political opinions or affiliations, and, further, that they shall not be removed, discharged, or reduced until they shall have been furnished with a written statement of the reasons for such action, and allowed a reasonable time in which to make written answer thereto.

The record shows that all of the persons removed under the respondent's resolution were members of the same political party, but it does not show that those who were retained were all of another political party; hence it does not appear that the prosecutors were discharged from their employment because of any discrimination against them on account of political opinions or affiliations.

The appellants in this case fail to show that their employments were not abolished for the purpose of economy, and therefore, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Paddock v....