Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Borough of West Wildwood

Decided: October 15, 1956.

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION TO CHARGE THE BOROUGH OF WEST WILDWOOD, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEN OF THE BOROUGH OF WEST WILDWOOD, WITH CONTEMPT OF COURT


Haneman, J.s.c.

Haneman

[42 NJSuper Page 283] By final decree dated July 3, 1934 the defendant Borough of West Wildwood was found guilty of polluting waters of the State of New Jersey. On July 10, 1934 a writ issued out of the Court of Chancery directing the borough to desist and refrain from permitting and allowing improperly, inadequately and insufficiently treated sewage to flow from the sewage system into the Post Creek, and to undertake the disposition of its sewage in a manner approved by the Department of Health of the State of New Jersey.

From time to time this matter came before the court and additional time was granted to the Borough of West Wildwood to comply with the directions of the injunction. However, as a result of a series of actions, on July 14, 1955 the borough and its officials, i.e. , Mayor Edwin A. Lusk, Councilman George H. Sloan and the late Councilman James B. Mitchell, were found guilty of contempt and a fine of $500 was levied against each of the individual defendants, and a fine of $5,000 was levied against the borough, with a daily penalty of $25 per day until compliance by the borough with the above referred to injunction.

The defendants have now made application for a remission of said fines.

The Attorney-General, upon the return day of the order to show cause, advised that there was no objection to the remission of the fines, except that he conceived that this was a criminal contempt and that this court was without jurisdiction to remit said fines.

The order citing the defendants to show cause why they should not be held guilty of the contempt charged them with a "criminal contempt." However, the judgment as entered does not disclose a determination of whether the contempt was civil or criminal, as required by R.R. 4:87-3. It is therefore necessary to first determine whether the contempts were civil or criminal.

"Contempts fall into two general categories or classes, i.e. , civil contempt and criminal contempt. Although by their very basic nature the two are frequently, at least to some extent, merged in a given act and are sometimes confused, it may be stated that normally, a civil contempt is a contempt consisting in a failure to perform some act required or ordered to be done by a court for the benefit of the opposing party, and is therefore an offense against the party in whose behalf a violated order or judgment is made. The ultimate object of a civil contempt proceeding is the vindication of private rights. A criminal contempt, on the other hand, concerns itself with conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the court. It is an act tending to obstruct, hinder or hamper justice in its due course. The purpose of a criminal contempt is the vindication of public authority and the preservation of the dignity of the court. It involves the element of public injury or offense." In re Bozorth , 38 N.J. Super. 184 (Ch. 1955).

"It is settled in our law that a criminal contempt proceeding is brought 'to vindicate the authority of the court with the public on one side and the defendants on the other.' Swanson v. Swanson , 8 N.J. 169, 180 (1951). And violation of a judgment or order forbidding the doing of an act constitutes criminal contempt. Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co. , 83 N.J. Eq. 300, 304 (E. & A. 1914); Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co. , 221 U.S. 418, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797 (1911)." Whippany Paperboard Co., Inc., v. Local No. 301, etc., C.I.O. , 11 N.J. 153 (1952). See also Nussbaum v. Hetzer , 1 N.J. 171 (1948).

"If the punishment is remedial and tends to coerce the individual to obedience, the contempt is civil. If it be only punitive, e.g. , punishment for wrong accomplished, the contempt is criminal. In the latter cases the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the law; in the former to compel obedience. One who is imprisoned for a civil contempt is confined until he is ready to obey, which he may do at any time. The saying has it that he who is guilty of a civil contempt has the keys of his prison in his own pocket. In re Nevitt , 8 Cir. , 117 Fed Rep. 448, 461. Punishment for civil contempt is intended to afford relief between the parties. Such punishment may be imprisonment or fines, to enforce obedience to the court's orders. As against this, a criminal contempt is essentially a public contempt." Markle v. Local Union No. 641, etc. , 131 N.J. Eq. 202 (E. & A. 1942).

As in the proceedings concerning a similar dereliction in Department of Health of State of New Jersey v. Borough of Fort Lee , 108 N.J. Eq. 139 (Ch. 1931), and In re Borough of Fort Lee , 108 N.J. Eq. 425 (Ch. 1931), the contempt here is partially criminal and partially civil.

It is here concluded that the contempt of the borough was civil and that of the individuals was criminal.

Criminal contempts have been pardoned by the executive, but such power does not apply to civil contempts. In re Caruba , 142 N.J. Eq. 358 (Ch. 1948); In re New Jersey Court of Pardons , 97 N.J. Eq. 555 (1925); Ex parte Grossman , 267 U.S. 87, 45 S. Ct. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.