Bd. of Health of Borough of Glen Ridge v. State
| Decision Date | 11 November 1901 |
| Parties | BOARD OF HEALTH OF BOROUGH OF GLEN RIDGE v. STATE (WERNER et al., Frosecutors). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court)
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of George H. Werner and others, against the board of health of the borough of Glen Ridge, to review conviction for violation of an ordinance. Conviction set aside.
Argued June term, 1901, before VAN SYCKEL, FORT, and GARRETSON, JJ.
Leonard Kalisch, for prosecutors.
McCarter & Adams, for defendant.
The complaint in this case charges that the defendants "did contract a plumbing and drainage system, or a portion thereof, of the building situated at the corner of Ridgewood avenue and Baldwin street, on the north side in the said borough of Glen Ridge, without their having first filed with the secretary of said board of health a plan thereof, signed by the owner, showing the said plumbing and drainage system entire, and without the approval of the said board of health having first been secured therefor." The ordinance in question reads as follows: etc. The complaint seems to charge two offenses: (1) Constructing the work "without their having first filed with the secretary of the board of health a plan thereof, signed by the owner." (2) Because they constructed the work "without the approval of the board of health being first secured therefor."
The conviction sent up is: "Defendants were by Arthur Darlington, a justice of the peace of the county of Essex, convicted of violating section seventy-six of the sanitary and plumbing code of the board of health of the borough of Glen Ridge, N. J.; * * * wherefore the said justice of the peace doth hereby give judgment that the plaintiff recover of the defendant fifty dollars penalty and four dollars and one cent costs of this proceeding." There is no conviction in the record of any offense with which the defendants are charged. They cannot be "convicted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mundet Cork Corp., A--50
...A.2d 532 (E. & A. 1945); Perrine Terrace Land Co. v. Brennan, 101 N.J.L. 487, 490, 128 A. 786 (Sup.Ct.1925); Board of Health v. Werner, 67 N.J.L. 103, 104, 50 A. 585 (Sup.Ct.1901); Camden and Amboy Railroad & Transp. Co. v. Briggs, 22 N.J.L. 623, 644 (E. & A. 1850). The doctrine of Ejusdem ......
-
Amodio v. Bd. Of Com'rs Of Town Of West N.Y.
...an open shop at other times. Prosecutor invokes the principle that a penal ordinance is to be strictly construed. Board of Health v. Werner, 67 N.J.L. 103, 50 A. 585; Perrine Terrace Land Co. v. Brennan, 101 N.J.L. 487, 128 A. 786. We conceive this to be a misinterpretation. The ordinance i......
- State v. Ocean City