State v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County

• Decision Date: 20 February 1896
• Citation: 33 A. 943,58 N.J.L. 531
• Parties: STATE (CAVANAGH, Prosecutor) v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

33 A. 943

58 N.J.L. 531

STATE (CAVANAGH, Prosecutor)

v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF ESSEX COUNTY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 20, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of Francis J. Cavanagh, against the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Essex, to review their action dismissing prosecutor. Dismissal set aside.

Argued November term, 1895, before DEPUE, VAN SYCKEL, and GUMMERE, JJ.

Joseph A. Beecher, for prosecutor.

Joseph L. Munn, for defendant.

GUMMERE, J. The writ of certiorari brings into this court, for review, the action of the jail inspection committee of the board of chosen freeholders of Essex county, removing the prosecutor from his position as keeper or guard in the Essex county jail. He was appointed to this position on March 4, 1890, for an indefinite period, and was removed on June 8, 1895, without a hearing, and without any charges having first been preferred against him. The prosecutor is an honorably discharged Union soldier, and claims that his removal is in violation of the provisions of an act, entitled "An act regarding honorably discharged Union soldiers, sailors, and marines," approved March 14, 1895 (P. L. 1895, p. 317). That act declares that no person now holding, or who may hereafter hold, a position or office under the government of this state, or the government of any city or county of this state, whose term of office is not fixed by law, who is an honorably discharged Union soldier, sailor, or marine, shall be removed from such position or office except for good cause shown, and that, before any such soldier, etc., shall be dismissed from any such position or office, charges shall be preferred against him, a copy of which must be served upon him, and a time set for the hearing of the same, at which time the soldier, etc, so accused shall have the right to be represented by counsel, and to procure witnesses and testimony in his own behalf. This act was in force at the time of the prosecutor's removal, and he was entitled to its protection, provided he held a position or office under the county government, within the meaning of the act. The distinction between those positions which are entitled to the protection of what are commonly known as the "Veteran Acts." and mere employments under the state, city, or county, is pointed out in the case of Lewis v. Jersey City, 51 N. J. Law, 240, 17 Atl. 112; and it is there stated that those acts do not apply to...