Fedorka v. City of Bayonne, 312.

• Decision Date: 15 January 1931
• Docket Number: No. 312.,312.
• Citation: 152 A. 855
• Parties: FEDORKA v. CITY OF BAYONNE et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

152 A. 855

FEDORKA

v. CITY OF BAYONNE et al.

No. 312.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 15, 1931.

Proceedings by Joseph Pedorko against the City of Bayonne and others. On rule to show cause for mandamus to pay increase of salary.

Rule discharged.

Argued October term, 1930, before PARKER, CAMPBELL, and BODINE, JJ.

Thomas A. McCarthy, of Bayonne, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We find no state of the case in this matter, although the rule was returnable on October 7 and the case was marked on briefs, which have been submitted.

There are no facts, nor is there any evidence of facts, before us. The moving affidavit has lost ail evidential force (Peer v. Bloxham, 82 N. J. Law, 288, 81 A. 659), and there is nothing before us by way of stipulation, or deposition, or any documentary evidence, to support the rule. Consequently it will be discharged with costs.

It may be pertinent to add that the brief submitted for the prosecutor is not signed by a counselor at law, and hence should not be considered even if the state of the case were before us. Leaver v. Kilmer (N. J. Sup.) 54 A. 817; Duysters v. Crawford, 69 N. J. Law, 229, 54 A. 823; Hazard v. Phoenix Co., 78 N. J. Eq. 568, 80 A. 456; Moore v. Bradley Beach, 67 N. J. Law, 391, 395, 94 A. 316.