Write a case study on the following case:

Gray v. Martino, 91 N.J.L. 462 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1918) MINTURN, J. The plaintiff occupied the position of a special police officer, in Atlantic City, and incidentally was identified with the work of the prosecutor of the pleas of the county. He possessed knowledge concerning the theft of certain diamonds and jewelry from the possession of the defendant, who had advertised a reward for the recovery of the property. In this situation he claims to have entered into a verbal contract with defendant, whereby she agreed to pay him $500 if he could procure for her the names and addresses of the thieves. As a result of his meditation with the police authorities the diamonds and jewelry were recovered, and plaintiff brought this suit to recover the promised reward. The District Court, sitting without a jury, awarded plaintiff a judgment for the amount of the reward, and hence this appeal. Various points are discussed in the briefs, but to us the dominant and conspicuous inquiry in the case is, was the plaintiff, during the period of this transaction, a public officer, charged with the enforcement of the law? The testimony makes it manifest that he was a special police officer to some extent identified with the work of the prosecutor's office, and that position, upon well-settled grounds of public policy, required him to assist, at least, in the prosecution of offenders against the law. The services he rendered, in this instance, must be presumed to have been rendered in pursuance of that public duty, and for its performance he was not entitled to receive a special quid pro quo. The cases on the subject are collected in a footnote to Somerset Bank v. Edmund, 10 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 726; 76 Ohio St. Rep. 396, the head-note to which reads: "Public policy and sound morals alike forbid that a public officer should demand or receive for services performed by him in the discharge of official duty any other or further remuneration or reward than that prescribed or allowed by law." This rule of public policy has been relaxed only in those instances where the legislature for sufficient public reason has seen fit by statute to extend the stimulus of a reward to the public without distinction, as in the case of United States v. Matthews, 173 U.S. 381, where the attorney-general, under an act for "the detection and prosecution of crimes against the United States," made a public offer of reward sufficiently liberal and generic to comprehend the services of a federal deputy marshal. Exceptions of that character upon familiar principles serve to emphasize the correctness of the rule, as one based upon sound public policy. The judgment below for that reason must be reversed.

Example Case Outline:

Gann V. Morris

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2 (1979)

Legal Issue: Was the contract, including the covenant not to compete, unenforceable due to a violation of public policy?

Facts: Morris, defendant, contracted with Gann, plaintiff, to sell his silk screening business and agreed not to enter into the same business with a 100-mile radius for a period of 10 years, not to compete with plaintiffs, and refer all business contracts to the plaintiffs. The trial court found that defendant (seller) breached the contract by competing with buyers and failing to refer contacts to plaintiffs. Defendant appealed.

Decision: Affirmed in favor of the plaintiff.

Court Analysis: The defendants agreement not to enter into silk screening or lettering shop business within the 100-mile radius, nor compete with customers, was not unreasonable as broader than necessary to protect the interest of the buyers of a small silk screening business, and thus, covenant would be enforced as written.

Dissent: No dissent.

My opinion: It is my opinion that the defendant entered into the covenant willingly; therefore, should obey the terms that were set forth, thus, I agree with the Court of Appeals in affirming the courts decision.