Murley v. Raritan Tp., 241.
| Citation | 188 A. 739 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 241.,241. |
| Parties | MURLEY v. RARITAN TP. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Action by Walter Murley against the Township of Raritan. To review a judgment reversing an order of the police commissioner of the Township of Raritan, the township brings certiorari.
Reversed.
Argued May term, 1936, before PARKER, LLOYD, and DONGES, JJ.
Thomas L. Hanson, of Perth Amboy, for prosecutor.
John C. Stockel, of Perth Amboy, for respondent.
The writ is to review the action of the common pleas judge in reversing an order of the police commissioner of Raritan township suspending a policeman for a period of six months.
The sole question is one of jurisdiction. Chapter 29, P.L.1935, p. 67, amends the Home Rule Act of 1917, chapter 152, by inserting a new section in article 16 after section 3 to be numbered 3A (N.J.St. Annual 1935, § *136—1603a), which enacts that "if any person shall be removed from office or employment in any such police department, or from the police force of any municipality, * * * such person may appeal such removal to the court of common pleas of the county in which such municipality is situated, and such court shall hear such case de novo, and may order such person reinstated in his office or employment if such court should find that such person was not guilty of the charges upon which he was removed."
It is contended by the prosecutor that the act applies only to cases of complete removal from office and not to suspension, and with this contention we agree.
The language of the act is "removed from office or employment," meaning, of course, removal of an officer from his office or of an employee from his employment. The officer was not removed from office, but suspended in its exercise. He is still a policeman holding his office subject to the suspension. Suspension is the "temporary forced withdrawal from the exercise of office"; removal is the "dismissal from office." (Webster's. International Dictionary.)
Suspensions are a matter of daily occurrence in the discipline of policemen. We think it was not the purpose of the act to give judicial review and trial de novo of every petty infraction of the police rules established (as in this case they were) under the authority of section 1 of this same article of the Home Rule Act (Comp.St. Supp.1924, § *136—1601) where the power of suspension is exercised, and the statute is not to be extended beyond the plain words of its enactment.
The judgment is reversed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. City of Huntington v. Lombardo
...necessary to require this is case of suspension. * * *' In making a distinction between removal and suspension in Murley v. Raritan Tp., 117 N.J.L. 357, 188 A. 739, the court stated: 'The officer was not removed from office, but suspended in its exercise. Ht is still a policeman holding his......
-
Rivell v. Civil Service Commission
...been defined as only a 'temporary forced withdrawal from the exercise of office' as opposed to a dismissal. Murley v. Township, of Raritan, 117 N.J.L. 357, 188 A. 739 (Sup.Ct.1936). But see Ballurio v. Castellini, 29 N.J.Super. 383, 390, 102 A.2d 662 (App.Div.1954). A suspended policeman re......
-
Ballurio v. Castellini
...discharge or dismissal; when it occurs the employment continues but becomes subject to the suspension. Cf. Murley v. Township of Raritan, 117 N.J.L. 357, 188 A. 739 (Sup.Ct.1936). And in such case it must be considered that not only are the duties and obligations of the employment removed t......
-
State v. Bullock
...thus was unable to commit misconduct in office), aff'd, 96 N.J. 570, 476 A.2d 1236 (1984); see generally, Murley v. Township of Raritan, 117 N.J.L. 357, 358, 188 A. 739 (Sup.Ct.1936) (distinguishing suspension, as temporary forced withdrawal from office, from removal, as dismissal from offi......