Herbert v. Atl. City
| Decision Date | 18 February 1915 |
| Citation | 87 N.J.L. 98,93 A. 80 |
| Parties | HERBERT v. ATLANTIC CITY. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by George Herbert to review a conviction by the Hoard of Commissioners of Atlantic City. Proceedings of Board affirmed.
Argued June term, 1914, before SWAYZE, PARKER, and KALISCH, JJ.
Charles C. Babcock, of Atlantic City, and Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, for prosecutor. Theodore W. Schimpf, of Atlantic City, for defendant.
The prosecutor was a member of the police department of Atlantic City. He was also a white slave officer for the United States government, and as such it was his duty to enforce all federal and white slave acts bordering on the social evil, etc.
Complaint was made by Josiah White & Sons Company against the prosecutor substantially as follows: That at about 3:30 o'clock in the morning of December 16, 1913, the prosecutor, accompanied by a man he claimed to be a chauffeur of a taxicab, appeared at the complainant's hotel, the Malborough-Blenheim, where and when the prosecutor claimed that the taxicab driver had brought a man from 134 North Carolina avenue to the hotel, who owed a bill for liquor at that place, and that he (the prosecutor) was there to collect it; that the chauffeur could identify the man; that he (the prosecutor) insisted upon being permitted to go to the man's room, and, upon that privilege being denied him, he said he was an officer of the United States government and would make it hot for the hotel; that he would return in the morning, and, if he did not get the money, he would take steps to punish the hotel; that the prosecutor was in a semi-intoxicated condition, and used loud, obscene, and profane language in endeavoring to browbeat the clerks and watchmen of the hotel. The complaint further discloses that, a few minutes before the prosecutor appeared at the hotel, one of the night clerks of the hotel was called up on a telephone by a woman claiming to be the proprietress of a house of ill fame, conducted on North Carolina avenue in Atlantic City; that she stated over the telephone that a man had just left her place for the hotel, and that he owed her $27.50, and requested the night clerk to collect the amount for her, which he refused to do, whereupon she asked him to find out who the man was and let her know, and, this request being likewise refused, she rang off, but that the night clerk still continued to listen on the wire, and heard the woman call up Detective Herbert, the prosecutor, and the following conversation:
This complaint was lodged with the director of public safety of Atlantic City, which city had adopted a commission form of government, under the act of 1911. P. L. 1911, p. 462.
The prosecutor being a member of the police department of the city of Atlantic City held a position from which he could not be removed, except for cause, under the tenure of office act. 2 C. S. p. 2468, § 541.
Upon this complaint the director of public safety charged the prosecutor as follows: (1) With misconduct as a member of the police department of Atlantic City. (2) With malfeasance in office as such member. (3) With conduct unbecoming an officer as such member. (4) With being intoxicated while a member of the police department. (5) With using his membership in such police department for an unlawful purpose.
The complaint and formulated charges were duly presented to the board of commissioners and duly adopted and approved by them, and the commissioners fixed a time and place for a hearing of the charges. Personal service of a copy of the complaint, affidavit, specification of charges, and the resolution of the board of commissioners, was duly made upon the prosecutor.
At the time and place fixed, the prosecutor appeared with counsel before the entire board of commissioners, where testimony was taken and arguments of counsel heard, and the board, having considered the same, adopted a resolution finding the prosecutor guilty of the first four specifications of charges, and acquitted him of the fifth specification, and, upon the charges of which the prosecutor was found guilty, he was, by resolution of the board, dismissed from the force.
The validity of the proceedings of the board of commissioners is first challenged, by the prosecutor, upon the ground that the complaint does not set forth facts which amount to a legal complaint of misconduct or inefficiency.
The prosecutor relies on section 537 of the act relating to "fire and police" (2 C. S. p. 2467), which, among other things, provides that the term of all persons employed in the police department,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isola v. Borough of Belmar
...Ward v. Keenan, 3 N.J. 298, 70 A.2d 77 (1949); Martin v. Smith, 100 N.J.L. 50, 52, 125 A. 142 (Sup.Ct.1924); Herbert v. Atlantic City, 87 N.J.L. 98, 101, 93 A. 80 (Sup.Ct.1915). In Hofbauer v. Board of Police Commissioners of East Orange, 133 N.J.L. 293, 44 A.2d 80 (Sup.Ct.1945), the court ......
-
Duncan v. Bd. Of Fire
...or rather, such was the assumption, the point not being in controversy. E.g., Leary v. Orange, 59 N.J.L. 350, 35 A. 786; Herbert v. Atlantic City, 87 N.J.L. 98, 93 A. 80. In Keegan v. Bayonne, 81 N.J.L. 120, 78 A. 1053, a police sergeancy was referred to both as a ‘position’ and an ‘office.......
-
Rivell v. Civil Service Commission
...properly and follow all rules and regulations. Hailes v. Kearney, 101 N.J.L. 401, 128 A. 150 (E. & A. 1925); Herbert v. Atlantic City, 87 N.J.L. 98, 101, 93 A. 80 (Sup.Ct.1915). Moreover, a policeman who has taken a leave of absence without pay is still subject to the rules and regulations ......
-
Kagan v. Caroselli
...was no requirement for the distribution of that judicial authority to the department heads. Hence it was held in Herbert v. Atlantic City, 87 N.J.L. 98, 93 A. 80 (Sup.Ct.1915), that the entire governing body had to hear a disciplinary charge against an employee. The statute was amended in t......