State v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders of Hudson County

• Citation: 53 N.J.L. 585,22 A. 56
• Parties: STATE (EVANS, Prosecutor) v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 10 June 1891
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

22 A. 56

53 N.J.L. 585

STATE (EVANS, Prosecutor)

v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF HUDSON COUNTY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 10, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

This writ brings up a resolution of the board of chosen freeholders of Hudson county dismissing the prosecutor from the employ of the board.

Argued at February term, 1891, before Knapp and Reed, JJ.

J. W. Bissell, for plaintiff.

J. A. McGrath, for defendant.

REED, J. The board of chosen freeholders of Hudson county on July 10, 1888, by a resolution, appointed Benjamin Evans to the position of machinist and relieving engineer at the county institution, at the rate of $3.50 per day, for one year, or until his successor should be duly appointed. The board, on January 30, 1890, passed another resolution, to the purport, among other things, that the position of machinist at Snake Hill, held by Benjamin Evans, be abolished, and the said Evans be dismissed from the employ and pay of the board. The prosecutor is an honorably discharged soldier of the Union army. He was dismissed without a hearing. He claims that his dismissal contravened the provisions of an act in regard to honorably discharged Union soldiers. Paraph. Laws 1888, p. 135. That act provides that no person holding a position in any city or county in this state, whose term of office is not now fixed by law, and receiving a salary from such city, county, or state, who is an honorably discharged soldier or sailor having served in the war of the Rebellion, shall be removed from such position except for good cause shown after a hearing, but such person shall hold his position during good behavior, and shall not be removed for political reasons. I think the board possessed the power to abolish the position or office which it had created, assuming that the position was one within the meaning of the act. Aside from the provisions of the above act, there exists no reason to doubt the ability of the board to do so. State v. Haines, 48 N. J. Law, 25¹, Greene v. Freeholders, 44 N. J. Law, 388. Nor, in my judgment, is this power abated by reason of the terms of the act. The statute was not designed for the purpose of perpetuating the existence of offices. Whenever for economical reasons, or any other reason arising from governmental policy, it may be thought wise to extinguish the office or position, the power which created can annul it. It is a matter of course that the exertion of the power to disestablish must be bona tide, for it is...