Harris v. Atl. City

• Decision Date: 20 February 1906
• Citation: 73 N.J.L. 251,62 A. 995
• Parties: HARRIS v. ATLANTIC CITY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

62 A. 995

73 N.J.L. 251

HARRIS

v. ATLANTIC CITY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 20, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by Harry Harris against Atlantic City to review two ordinances of the city. Affirmed.

Argued November term, 1905, before GARRISON, SWAYZE, and DIXON, JJ.

J. J. Crandall, for prosecutor. Harry Wootton, for the city.

DIXON, J. The prosecutor has sued out two writs of certiorari; one bringing up an ordinance of Atlantic City, approved April 11, 1905, to regulate the use of the Board Walk along the ocean in front of the city, the other bringing up the conviction of the prosecutor for violation of the ordinance. The ordinance provides that no person or corporation shall on the Board Walk exhibit, rent, hire, sell, or exchange, or offer for rent, hire, sale or exchange, any goods, wares, merchandise, tickets of admission, commodity, rolling chair, or other vehicle for carrying passengers.

The reasons assigned by the prosecutor for setting aside this ordinance are that the ordinance is not authorized by statute, that the power of the city council is limited to the licensing of persons to use the Board Walk in certain modes and to the prohibition of such use by persons not so licensed, and that the restrictions of the ordinance are an invasion of private right and are unreasonable. The statutory authority to regulate the use of the Board Walk is conferred by section 11 of the act of April 6, 1889 (P. L. p. 214), under which the Walk was constructed, and also by paragraph 6, section 14, of the act of April 3, 1902 (P. L. p. 284), under which Atlantic City is now governed. The Legislature has fixed no express limitation upon this general power to regulate, and the only limitation which the courts can impose is that it shall not be exercised unreasonably. Penn. R. R. Co. v. Jersey City, 47 N. J. Law, 286; Trenton Horse R. R. Co. v. Trenton, 53 N. J. Law, 132, 20 Atl. 1076, 11 L. R. A. 410; Cape May R. R. Co. v. Cape May, 59 N. J. Law, 396, 36 Atl. 696, 36 L. R. A. 653.

We must, therefore, consider whether the ordinance under review transgresses this limitation. The primary object to be subserved under the act of 1889, above cited, in laying out and constructing "public walks along the beach or ocean front," was evidently to secure pleasant promenades for pedestrians, and we perceive nothing unreasonable in an ordinance forbidding the use of such walks for traffic which may interfere with that object. Commonwealth v. Ellis, 158 Mass. 555, 63 N. E. 651. The hiring of chairs upon the Board Walk may certainly cause such interference. The design indicated by this restriction is that rolling chairs shall not be allowed on the Board Walk, except when they are in actual use by passengers or are going to some...