Stark v. Overseer of Poor of Jersey City

• Decision Date: 09 March 1917
• Citation: 100 A. 340,90 N.J.Law. 187
• Parties: STARK et ux. v. OVERSEER OF POOR OF JERSEY CITY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

100 A. 340

90 N.J.Law. 187

STARK et ux.

v. OVERSEER OF POOR OF JERSEY CITY.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 9, 1917.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceedings by the Overseer of the Poor of Jersey City against Nelson Stark and wife to procure an order of the court for the support of an indigent relative. From an order of the court, Nelson Stark and wife appeal. Reversed, with costs.

Ralph E. Lum, of Newark, for appellants. John Bentley, of Jersey City, for appellee.

SWAYZE, J. Although counsel for the appellants made a very courageous argument to induce us to declare unconstitutional a statute which in substance antedates the Constitution by nearly a century and has been on the statute book continuously since 1758 (2 Nevill, 227), we think the only objection to the judgment worth considering is that the proceedings fail to show the jurisdictional facts required by the act. The statute now appears as section 15 of the act of 1911 for the settlement and relief of the poor (P. L. 1911, p. 397). The procedure prescribed is different from that prescribed in the old act as amended in 1904 (C. S. p. 4023, § 30). It requires that the father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, children, and grandchildren of any poor person not able to work, being of sufficient ability, relieve and maintain the poor person "in such manner as the overseer of the poor shall order and direct," and that if any of the relatives named should fail to perform the order or direction of the overseer with regard to the support of such indigent relatives, or should such indigent relative be supported at public expense and the overseer neglect to make such order or direction, it shall be lawful for the court to make the order upon complaint of the overseer or two freeholders resident in the municipality. Two cases are thus provided for: (1) Where the overseer has made an order for relief and maintenance which the relatives have failed to perform; (2) where the indigent relative is supported at public expense and the overseer neglects to make the order. In the first case, it seems the court may act upon complaint of the overseer; in the second case, upon the complaint of the two freeholders. This is the natural construction, since it can hardly be that an overseer who was willing to make the complaint to the court would fail to take the initial step of making the order for support; and it is equally improbable that the legislature meant that the complaint should be made to...