Fennan v. Atl. City
| Decision Date | 09 March 1916 |
| Citation | 97 A. 150,88 N.J.Law 435 |
| Parties | FENNAN v. ATLANTIC CITY et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
William Fennan, after conviction of violations of city ordinance, brings certiorari. Judgments affirmed.
The writs in these cases bring up for review five convictions of the prosecutor before the recorder of the city of Atlantic City for the violation of an ordinance of Atlantic City entitled, "An ordinance for the suppression of vice and immorality." The writs also bring up for review the ordinance itself.
The violations of the ordinance upon which the convictions were had consisted of operating certain amusements on Sunday. The prosecutor was fined $200 on each of the convictions, with an alternative penalty that, if the fines were not paid, he should be imprisoned for 30 days upon one of the convictions, and for a day each upon the other convictions, which terms of imprisonment were to run consecutively.
The facts, briefly, are as follows: The prosecutor is the manager of the Atlantic Amusement Company, which operates an amusement pier in Atlantic City known as the Steeplechase Pier. On this pier there are a number of amusements, all of which are operated by the Atlantic Amusement Company under the management of the prosecutor. A fee of 25 cents is charged for admission to the pier, and none of the amusements can be used by any person who has not paid the 25 cents admission. The offenses for which the prosecutor was convicted took place on the same day, namely, the 26th day of July, 1915; the evidence being obtained by two policemen who purchased admission tickets and paid 25 cents each for the same.
There are a number of amusement devices on the pier to the use and enjoyment of which every one who has paid an admission fee is entitled without the payment of any extra fee excepting the shooting gallery, the Johnson family (which is a species of hit the baby game), the Ferris wheel, and the merry-go-round, for the use of which an extra fee is charged.
The prosecutor was convicted of operating the four above-named devices, and also of operating a device known as the "Razzle Dazzle," for the enjoyment of which no extra fee was charged.
The prosecutor assigns 19 reasons why the convictions and ordinances should be set aside. These reasons may be briefly summarized as follows:
(1) There should have been only one conviction for the violation of the ordinance in question.
(2) The ordinance is invalid, because it exempts from its operation moving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hertz Washmobile System v. Village of South Orange
...statute sought to prevent desecration of the Sabbath. Reeves v. Butcher, 31 N.J.L. 224, 226 (Sup.Ct.1865); Pennan v. City of Atlantic City, 88 N.J.L. 435, 437, 97 A. 150 (Sup.Ct.1916), affirmed on opinion below, 90 N.J.L. 674--677, 101 A. (E. & A.1917). To bottom such legislation upon that ......
-
Auto-Rite Supply Co. v. Mayor and Township Committeemen of Woodbridge Tp.
...Newark, 79 N.J.L. 386, 75 A. 433 (Sup.Ct.1910); Geisler v. Davis, 9 N.J.Misc. 185, 153 A. 252 (Sup.Ct.1931); cf. Fennan v. Atlantic City, 88 N.J.L. 435, 97 A. 150 (Sup.Ct.1916), affirmed 90 N.J.L. 675, 101 A. 1054 (E. & A.1917). The Revision did not alter the situation. The local power was ......
-
State v. Fair Lawn Service Center
...to substantially increase the penalty for a violation of the act or vesting this power in the municipalities.' Fennan v. Atlantic City, 88 N.J.L. 435, 97 A. 150 (Sup.Ct.1916); Atlantic City v. France, 75 N.J.L. 910, 70 A. 163, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 156 (E. & A. 1907); McQuillan on Municipal Corpo......
-
Hertz Washmobile System v. Village of South Orange, A--8
...is no conflict with the state law,' citing Sherman v. City of Paterson, 82 N.J.L. 345, 82 A. 889 (Sup.Ct.1912); Fennan v. Atlantic City, 88 N.J.L. 435, 97 A. 150 (Sup.Ct.1916), affirmed 90 N.J.L. 674, 101 A. 1054 (E. & A.1917); Schachter v. Hauenstein, 92 N.J.L. 104, 105 A. 13 (Sup.Ct.1918)......