Balling v. Bd. of Excise of City of Elizabeth
| Decision Date | 08 November 1909 |
| Citation | 79 N.J.L. 197,74 A. 277 |
| Parties | BALLING v. BOARD OF EXCISE OF CITY OF ELIZABETH et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Valentine Balling to review a resolution of the Board of Excise of the City of Elizabeth. Resolution set aside.
Argued June term, 1909, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.
Charles Wagner, for prosecutor. James C. Connolly, for respondents.
The board of excise of the city of Elizabeth issued a license to keep an inn and tavern at No. 563 Livingston street in that city to the prosecutor, to run for one year from February 5, 1908. Complaint was made to the board against the prosecutor, charging that he had failed to remove the screens from the window of his tavern on Sunday April 5, 1908, in violation of the provisions of the resolution of the excise board, passed in conformity with the provisions of the so-called "Bishop's law" (chapter 114, p. 199, P. L. 1906). The hearing upon this complaint was adjourned from time to time, and was finally set down for trial on October 1, 1908. Upon that day a meeting of the board was held, but no action was taken upon the complaint, and no disposition whatever was made of it. The same complainants on August 21, 1908, filed another complaint with the board, against this prosecutor, alleging the same violations of the excise law that were contained in the previous complaint, the trial upon which was then pending and undetermined. A notice was served upon the prosecutor to appear before the board on September 17, 1908, and answer the charges; but, although the board met upon that day, no action was taken upon this complaint, and no attempt was made to act upon it by postponement, or otherwise. While the hearings upon these complaints were thus suspended in nubibus, the board, without notice, proceeded with the trial of the prosecutor, upon the charges alleged in the second complaint, and in his absence he was tried and found guilty, and on January 14, 1909, a judgment was entered revoking his license.
The legal effect of the judgment was to disqualify the prosecutor for one year from obtaining a license as an inn and tavern keeper in this state. P. L. 1906, c. 114, § 3. While it was clearly within the power of the board of excise to revoke the license for the causes specified in the act of 1906, upon proof of the violation of the provisions of the act, yet such revocation is a judicial act in its nature and consequences, and therefore can be exercised only upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palmetto Fire Ins. Co. v. Beha
...a contract. Metropolitan Excise Board v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657; Burgess v. Brocton, 235 Mass. 95, 126 N. E. 456; Balling v. Elizabeth Excise Board, 79 N. J. Law, 197, 74 A. 277. It is not a property right. Jones v. Motley, 78 Ala. 370; Voight v. Newark Excise Board, 59 N. J. Law, 358, 36 A. ......
-
State v. Loucks
...a judicial or quasi-judicial investigation upon notice and with an opportunity to be heard. Of these cases we cite only a few. Balling v. Elizabeth, 79 N.J.L. 197; 74 A. Abrams v. Jones, 35 Ida. 532, 207 P. 724; Abrams vs. Daugherty (Calif. App.) 212 P. 942; Riley vs. Wright, 151 Ga. 609, 1......
-
Cunningham v. Department of Civil Service
...Board of Excise, 57 N.J.L. 603, 31 A. 235 (Sup.Ct.1895); Lambert v. Rahway, 58 N.J.L. 578, 34 A. 5 (Sup.Ct.1896); Balling v. Elizabeth, 79 N.J.L. 197, 74 A. 277 (Sup.Ct.1909). Entitlement to the hearing may be ascribable to federal and state constitutional guarantees of due process (William......
-
Cino v. Driscoll
...v. Driscoll, supra, 129 N.J.L. page 410, 29 A.2d 888), nor the character of the proceeding, be it quasi-judicial (Balling v. Elizabeth, 79 N.J.L. 197, 199, 74 A. 277), or administrative (Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 56 S.Ct. 906, 80 L.Ed. 1288; Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1,......