Corcoran v. McCarthy, Judge, 210.
| Decision Date | 14 April 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 210.,210. |
| Citation | 149 A. 765 |
| Parties | CORCORAN v. MCCARTHY, Judge, et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by William J. Corcoran, Clerk of the First Criminal Judicial District Court of Bergen county, to review an order for his removal made by Charles J. McCarthy, judge of that court, and approved by judge of Quarter Sessions Court of such county.
Order of removal and order of approval set aside.
Argued October term, 1929, before TRENCHARD, LLOYD, and CASE, JJ.
William George, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.
James De Turck, of Hackensack, for defendants.
This, writ of certiorari brings up the order of removal of the prosecutor, clerk of the first criminal judicial district court of Bergen county, made by the judge of that court, and also the "approval" thereof by the judge of the quarter sessions court of such county.
The act under which the prosecutor held as clerk is chapter 204, p. 340 of P. L. 1926, section 13 of which provides among other things as follows: "Every such clerk appointed as aforesaid shall hold office during good behavior and shall be removed for cause only after an opportunity to be heard respecting the cause assigned for removal, and such order for removal shall not be effective and operative until such proceedings are reviewed and approved by the judge of the Court of Quarter Sessions," etc.
We think the order of removal must be set aside because no "opportunity to be heard respecting the cause assigned for removal" was given the clerk.
The record discloses that on March 30, 1929, the clerk was served with notice of his removal from his position as clerk, effective April 1, 1929, signed by the judge of such district court, and attached to such notice of removal was a statement of the fifteen "reasons" for such removal. No notice of hearing upon such "reasons" was given to the clerk, nor was any hearing had upon such "reasons." On May 3, 1929, there was what is claimed to have been a "review," before the judge of quarter sessions, of such order of removal. But no notice of such review was given to the clerk, nor did he have knowledge of the proceedings.
Both the order of removal and the approval thereof will be set aside, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martini v. Civil Serv. Comm'n.
...others seek appointment as policemen. Cf. Albert v. Caldwell, 127 N.J.L. 203, 21 A.2d 782. The holding in the case of Corcoran v. McCarthy, 149 A. 765, 8 N.J. Misc. 281, is not applicable to the case at bar; it is clearly distinguishable. It relates to the removal of a clerk of the First Cr......