Haynes v. City of Cape May

• Decision Date: 20 February 1890
• Citation: 52 N.J.L. 180,19 A. 176
• Parties: HAYNES v. CITY OF CAPE MAY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

19 A. 176

52 N.J.L. 180

HAYNES

v. CITY OF CAPE MAY.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 20, 1890.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court. See 13 Atl. Rep. 231.

Herbert W. Edmunds, for plaintiff in error. Richard T. Miller, for defendant in error.

DIXON, J. On July 15, 1882, the common council of the city of Cape May passed an ordinance to the effect "that no person * * * shall hereafter * * * keep or use for hire any hack, * * * for the transportation of passengers, * * * within the limits of the city of Cape May, * * * without having first obtained a license therefor; that there shall be charged to each person licensed * * * for each hack * * * drawn by two horses, $10.00, drawn by one horse, $5.00; and that for any offense against the provisions of the ordinance * * * the offender shall forfeit and pay the sum of one hundred dollars." In an action brought in the court of common pleas by the city of Cape May, a judgment was recovered against Albert L. Haynes, the plaintiff in error, for the said penalty of $100, because he had kept and used hacks for hire in the city during the summer of 1885 without a license. That judgment, having been removed to the supreme court, was there affirmed, and is now brought before us by writ of error.

The reasons assigned for reversal of this judgment relate only to the validity of the ordinance, and bring us first to consider under what statute, if any, it can be sustained. The city charter, approved March 3, 1875, authorized the council to establish ordinances "to license and regulate * * * hack owners and drivers, and carriages and vehicles used for the transportation of passengers, * * * and to prohibit unlicensed persons from acting in such capacities." P. L. 1875, p. 206, § 19, par. 25. It also provided, in section 21, that in all cases where, by the provisions of that act, the council had authority to pass ordinances on any subject, they might prescribe a penalty or penalties for the violation thereof, either by imprisonment in the city or county jail not exceeding 30 days, or by fine not exceeding $100. These enactments, if still in force when the ordinance was adopted, would plainly have warranted its terms, but we are of opinion that the quotation from section 19 was not then operative. A general law passed March 25, 1881, (P. L. 1881, p. 299,) and amended March 31, 1882, (P. L. 1882, p. 228,) enacted that it should be "lawful for the common council, board of aldermen, or other governing body of any city * * * to make and establish ordinances for the following purposes, viz., license and regulate * * * hack owners and drivers, and carriages and vehicles used for the transportation of passengers, * * * and to prohibit unlicensed persons and vehicles from acting or being used in such capacities; and the fees for such licenses might be imposed for revenue." This general statute was enacted in obedience to the mandate of the constitution (article 4, § 7, par. 11) that the legislature shall pass general laws regulating the internal affairs of towns and counties, and, according to its terms, it prescribes the law for all cities in the state. In order to give effect to the manifest design of this constitutional provision, general statutes, passed in pursuance thereof, should be deemed to repeal all inconsistent rules in special charters, whether an express repealer be stated or not; for, if this force be not ascribed to them, the generality of the statutes will be defeated by their being confined to narrower limits than an entire class, and thus, by judicial interpretation, the statutes will become unconstitutional, Closson v. Trenton, 48 N. J. Law, 438, 5 Atl. Rep. 323, 49 N. J. Law, 482, 9 Atl. Rep. 719; Bowyer v. Camden, 50 N. J. Law, 87, 11...