Jucker v. Recorder's Court Of Town Of Irvington.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1945
• Docket Number: No. 215.,215.
• Citation: 133 N.J.L. 12,42 A.2d 269
• Parties: JUCKER v. RECORDER'S COURT OF TOWN OF IRVINGTON.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

133 N.J.L. 12

42 A.2d 269

JUCKER

v.RECORDER'S COURT OF TOWN OF IRVINGTON.

No. 215.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

April 30, 1945.

Certiorari by Jacob Jucker against Recorder's Court of the Town of Irvington, N. J., to review conviction for a violation of N.J.S.A. 33:1-77, making it a misdemeanor to sell alcoholic beverage to a minor.

Judgment set aside.

January term, 1945, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PERSKIE, JJ.

Maurice Schapira, of Newark, for prosecutor.

John J. Gaffey and Herman W. Kurtz, both of Newark, for defendant.

DONGES, Justice.

This writ of certiorari brings up the conviction of the prosecutor in the Recorder's Court of the Town of Irvington for a violation of R.S. 33:1-77, N.J.S.A., which provides that any one who sells an alcoholic beverage to a minor shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Prosecutor signed a waiver of indictment and trial by jury.

The court below obtains its jurisdiction by virtue of R.S. 2:216-4, N.J.S.A., which provides that the recorder ‘shall, in addition to his other powers, try and determine all cases of assault, * * * and also other criminal offenses, the penalty for which does not exceed a fine of one hundred dollars, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.’ The offense charged against the prosecutor is not one of those specifically named in the statute, so the jurisdiction of the court to try the offense must depend upon the general specification of ‘other criminal offenses,’ etc.

R.S. 33:1-51, N.J.S.A., provides the penalty for violation of R.S. 33:1-77 in the following language, ‘Any person who shall knowingly violate any of the other provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars and not more than two hundred fifty dollars, or imprisonment for not less than ten days and not more than ninety days, or both.’

The contention of the prosecutor is that by virtue of this provision the offense is not one within the jurisdiction of the court because it is punishable with a fine in excess of one hundred dollars.

It has been held that the limitations of punishment contained in R.S. 2:216-4, supra, do not refer to the specifically enumerated offenses mentioned in the act, but that they do apply to the general unnamed offenses. De Feo v. Recorder's Court of the Town of Belleville, 129 N.J.L. 549, 30 A.2d 507.

The defendant contends that the recorder has jurisdiction in cases of offenses where either the fine does not...