State v. Applegate
| Decision Date | 04 March 1887 |
| Citation | 49 N.J.L. 376,8 A. 505 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. IRVING v. APPLEGATE, County Auditor, etc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Application for mandamvs.
Mr. Arrowsmith, for relator.
Mr. Hawkins, contra.
PARKER, J. A man named Samuel Johnson, usually known as "Mingo Jack," was murdered in Monmouth county on the night of the sixth of March, 1886. The prosecutor of the pleas of said county employed the relator as a detective to aid in the detection of the person or persons who committed the crime. He reported, from time to time, to the prosecutor of the pleas, the information he obtained, and finally presented in due form, under affidavit, his bill against the county for services. This bill, verified by affidavit of the relator, approved by the prosecutor of the pleas of the county as correct and reasonable, was approved and certified by the presiding judge of the court of oyer and terminer of the county of Monmouth. The bill, thus verified and approved, was duly presented for payment to the board of chosen freeholders of said county at a regular session held in July, 1886. The board refused to pay the bill, whereupon a writ of peremptory mandamus was by order of this court issued, commanding the said board of chosen freeholders forthwith to pay said relator the amount of his said bill, with interest thereon from the fifteenth day of September, 1886, and costs. On the eighth day of November, 1886, the said writ of mandamus was regularly served on said board of chosen freeholders. The board, instead of directing the county collector to pay the bill, and voting that an order for payment of same be drawn on the county collector, and delivered to the relator, passed the bill, but transmitted the same to the county auditor for audit and certificate to the county collector. A request was subsequently made, on behalf of the relator, to said county auditor to audit said bill and certify it to the county collector for payment, which the auditor refused to do. Application is now made for a writ of mandamus to compel said auditor to audit said bill, and certify it to the county collector.
It has been decided by this court that a claim of the nature of the bill in this case, duly verified and certified by the presiding judge, is conclusive, both as to the necessity of the expenses and the amount of the bill, and that it is the duty of the board of chosen freeholders of the county to pay the same on the presentation of the bill so approved and certified. Lindabury v. Freeholders Ocean Co., 47 N. J. Law, 417, 1 Atl. Rep. 701.
The county auditor resists the application for mandamus against him. He insists that an act providing for the election of a county auditor for the county of Monmouth, and defining his duties, was passed in the year 1873, by which the auditor is given discretionary power to audit all bills against said county, and that, where discretion is given to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nolan v. Fitzpatrick
...court reporter, Knight v. Freeholders of Ocean County, 48 N.J.L. 70, 3 A. 344 (Sup.Ct.1886), a bill of a detective, Irving v. Applegate, 49 N.J.L. 376, 8 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1887), and a requisition for the equipment and maintenance of a county criminal district court, Carrick v. Board of Chosen......
-
Sewell v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County
...of which were made known; Angle v. Runyon, 38 N.J.L. 403; Lindabury v. Freeholders of Ocean, 47 N.J.L. 417, 1 A. 701, Irving v. Applegate, 49 N.J.L. 376, 8 A. 505 and Knight v. Freeholders of Ocean, 48 N.J.L. 70, 3 A. 344, were on due claims, conclusively determined; Kelley v. Board of Chos......
-
Bigley, Application of
...judge, to determine the reasonableness of the means employed, and the necessity of the expenses incurred.' And in Irving v. Applegate, 49 N.J.L. 376, 8 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1887), the court repeated that the certificate of the presiding judge was 'conclusive,' adding that the certificate 'has the......
-
Hudson County v. Zink
...but such has not been the rule. The latter statute controls. Ackley v. Norcross, 122 N.J.L. 569, 6 A.2d 721. See also Irving v. Applegate, 49 N.J.L. 376, 8 A. 505; Lindabury v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Ocean County, 47 N.J.L. 417, 1 A. 701. It is stated in the County's brief that in t......