Glassman v. Essex County Juvenile Court, 226.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1931
• Docket Number: No. 226.,226.
• Citation: 154 A. 722
• Parties: GLASSMAN et al. v. ESSEX COUNTY JUVENILE COURT et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

154 A. 722

GLASSMAN et al.

v. ESSEX COUNTY JUVENILE COURT et al.

No. 226.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 5, 1931.

Certiorari by Morris Glassman and others to review a determination of the Essex County Domestic Relations and Juvenile Court on application by Joseph Glassman to compel three of his sons to contribute to his support.

Judgment and order set aside.

Argued January term, 1931, before PARKER, CAMPBELL, and BODINE, JJ.

Harry Levin, of Newark, for prosecutors.

Benjamin M. Weinberg, of Newark, for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

The writ brings up the determination of the Essex county domestic relations and juvenile court in application by a father to compel three of his sons to contribute to his support, based on section 74 of the revised Poor Act, P. L. 1924, p. 252, at pp. 288, 289 (Comp St. Supp. § 161—197). The facts are somewhat complicated, but the following are sufficient for present purposes: The prosecutors are the three sons, and the father is a defendant. His wife, whom he married in 1902, sued him for divorce in 1928 or 1929 on the ground of cruelty, and asked alimony for herself and her children. Defendant filed an answer, but withdrew it, and the case went to an ex parte reference. The special master reported May 18, 1929, in favor of a divorce, stated that the sons were working, that the father was epileptic, but had worked for years and was still able to do so; and recommended award of alimony at $10 per week, but without bond. Final decree carrying this alimony was signed on September 14, 1929. On September 23, the father made complaint against the three sons under the Poor Act, alleging that he was ill and unable to work. Before this complaint went to a hearing, there was an application in the divorce suit to hold him in contempt for not paying the alimony. As to this, all that is now laid before us is an order advised on October 8, 1929, denying the contempt application "on good cause shown." The hearing in the juvenile court was begun on October 16, and concluded December 23, after an adjournment, and on January 4, 1930, the juvenile court ordered the three sons to pay the father $10 a week. They did so for a time, but at some time in March ceased making payments, and on May 2 there was an application to the juvenile court to adjudge them in contempt, followed by a rule to show cause. At this point there is a hiatus in the proceedings so far as the printed case shows, until September 13, when the writ of certiorari was allowed. However, laches in applying for this writ does not seem to be urged.

The first point made is that the statute does not authorize complaint by an individual, but only by the overseer of the poor. Stark v. Fagan, 90 N. J. Law, 187, 100 A. 340, so decided in 1917, but the statute of 1924, ubi supra, now allows complaint by the party seeking relief or the court itself...