Boylan v. Board of Police Commissioners
WILLIAM BOYLAN v. THE BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF NEWARK
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The opinion of the court was delivered by Dixon, J.
This certiorari brings up resolutions of the board of police commissioners of the city of Newark, passed November 22d and December 6th, 1892, abolishing the office or rank of police sergeant, which had been created by the board and was then held by nine persons, of whom the prosecutor is one. The validity of the resolutions is assailed on the ground that under the act of March 25th, 1885 (Pamph. L., p. 163), the prosecutor could not be legally removed from his office or employment except for the causes therein specified, and then only after charges had Been preferred against him and he had been tried and convicted thereon.
The case shows that the office or rank was abolished bona fide for the purpose of reducing the expenses of the department, upon the judgment of the commissioners that, because of the introduction of a signal system, the duties of the nine sergeants could be performed by four men, whom they denominated “ roundsmen.” Since the abolition, those duties appear to have been discharged by roundsmen never exceeding six in number, and the public outlay has been diminished about five thousand dollars per annum.
*134 These circumstances, we think, take the ease out of the range of the act of March 25th, 1885, and bring it within the principles laid down in Evans v. Freeholders of Hudson, 24 Vroom 585 , and Newark v. Lyon, Id. 632 .
Upon those authorities the proceedings of the commissioners are affirmed, with costs.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.