Neeld v. Giroux, A--95

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation131 A.2d 508,24 N.J. 224
Docket NumberNo. A--95,A--95
PartiesAaron K. NEELD, Director, Division of Taxation, State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leon GIROUX, Defendant-Appellant, and Leon Dubois, Defendant.
Decision Date06 May 1957

George Winne, Hackensack, argued the cause for appellant.

John F. Crane, Trenton, argued the cause for respondent (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney; John F. Crane, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by


Defendant Leon Giroux of Colebrook, N.H. purchased 154 cases of cigarettes from R. Baylin Company of Wilmington, Del. The transaction was consummated at Elkton, Md., by delivery of the merchandise in exchange for $15,186 in cash. While operating his truck through New Jersey, Giroux was stopped, and the cigarettes not bearing stamps required by our Cigarette Tax Act and he not having in his possession invoices complying with the act, the Director of the Division of Taxation filed two complaints in the municipal court of Milltown, one for a penalty and the other for the confiscation of the cigarettes as contraband. Judgments were entered in favor of plaintiff on both complaints, the penalty being in the sum of $2,685. The co-defendant Leon Dubois, who was with Giroux, was found not guilty.

Giroux appealed to the County Court where, on a trial De novo on the stenographic record made below, like judgments were entered. Giroux' appeal to the Appellate Division was certified by us on our own motion.

The Cigarette Tax Act, chapter 65 of the Laws of 1948, N.J.S.A. 54:10A--1 et seq., provides in section 609 as amended, N.J.S.A. 54:40A--32, that

'Every person who shall transport cigarettes not stamped as required by this act upon the public highways, waterways, roads or streets of this State shall have in his actual possession invoices or delivery tickets for such cigarettes which shall show the true name and address of the consignor or seller, the true name of the consignee or purchaser, the quantity and brands of the cigarettes transported and the name and address of the person who has or shall assume the payment of the State tax at the point of ultimate destination, * * *'

and authorizes the confiscation of the cigarettes, vehicle, vessel, and paraphernalia as contraband and the imposition of a maximum penalty of $25 per carton in the absence of the required documents. It protects an innocent lienor with respect to the vehicle, and upon an appropriate finding Giroux' truck was turned over to a Vermont bank.

The invoices in Giroux' possession revealed the true name and address of the seller and the quantities and brands of the cigarettes, but were held to be insufficient in two respects: (1) they read 'Sold to Leon c/o Magnesia Plant, Elkton, Md.,' and although signed 'Leon Giroux' at the place designated for 'Customer's Signature,' yet, as found below, it was Giroux' undisclosed principal who was the consignee or purchaser; and (2) they did not contain 'the name and address of the person who has or shall assume the payment of the State tax at the point of ultimate destination.' Giroux disputes the finding that he was acting for another and insists he was the true consignee or purchaser within the meaning of the act. We need not dwell upon this proposition, since for other reasons we conclude the judgments must be reversed.

Plaintiff accepts the finding that the cigarettes were destined for Vermont and hence that no evasion of our tax was contemplated, but maintains that a violation of the cigarette tax law of Vermont was intended and that our statute denies the use of our highways for that illegal purpose. Defendant disputes the constitutional power of New Jersey to restrain interstate transit to protect sister states. We do not reach the issue thus tendered since we think it clear that the Legislature concerned itself solely with our tax and evasions of it.

There is no reference in the title or body of the act to the violation of the laws of another state or the use of the highways for such purpose. Nor does the history of the particular section here involved support plaintiff's thesis; on the contrary, it reveals that the objective was to deal with violations of our statute alone.

As originally enacted, N.J.S.A. 54:40A--32 read:

'Every person who shall possess or transport any unstamped cigarettes upon the public highways, roads or streets of this State shall be required to have in his actual possession invoices or delivery tickets for such cigarettes. The absence of such invoices or delivery tickets shall be prima facie evidence that such person is a dealer in cigaretters in this State subject to all of the provisions and penalties provided for in this act.'

It will be noted that the absence of the required documents was made Prima facie evidence in terms related to enforcement of our statute. This section was amended by chapter 281 of the Laws of 1951, by chapter 246 of the Laws of 1952, and by chapter 225 of the Laws of 1954. The statement with the bill which became the 1952 law reads in part:

'It is likewise the purpose of these amendments to tighten the law with regard to the illegal smuggling of cigarettes into the State.'

The statement with the bill which became the 1954 statute expressed the purpose 'to vest in the courts the power of confiscation of contraband cigarettes, vehicles and vessels, and paraphernalia used in connection with contraband cigarettes.' We read these statements to buttress the proposition that the Legislature was concerned solely with protecting the revenues of New Jersey.

Plaintiff urges alternatively that assuming the section is designed to protect only the New Jersey tax, yet the Legislature may require a person transporting cigarettes through the State to carry appropriate documents to enable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • State v. Des Marets
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 26 d3 Janeiro d3 1983
    ...of the Graves Act is still influenced by, if not subject to, the traditional principle of strict construction. Neeld v. Giroux, 24 N.J. 224, 229, 131 A.2d 508 (1957); State v. Brenner, 132 N.J.L. 607, 611, 41 A.2d 532 (E. & A. 1944). It is difficult to imagine a rule of construction of grea......
  • State v. Gantt
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 30 d4 Janeiro d4 1986
    ...I fully recognize that the rules of strict construction extending to penal statutes, such as the Graves Act, Neeld v. Giroux, 24 N.J. 224, 229, 131 A.2d 508 (1957); State v. Brenner, 132 N.J.L. 607, 611, 41 A.2d 532 (E. & A. 1944), do not prohibit the imputation of distinct meanings to the ......
  • State v. Hatch
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 28 d5 Dezembro d5 1973
    ...borders. See South Carolina State Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 58 S.Ct. 510, 82 L.Ed. 734 (1938); Neeld v. Giroux, 24 N.J. 224, 228, 130 A.2d 601 (1957); Cf. Soap and Detergent Association v. City of Chicago, 357 F.Supp. 44, 47 (D.Ill.1973). But he did contend, unsuccessfu......
  • State v. Sedacca, 9
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 d2 Janeiro d2 1969
    ...Ass'n v. McGrath, 94 F.Supp. 705 (D.D.C.1950), aff'd Mem., 340 U.S. 925, 71 S.Ct. 500, 95 L.Ed. 668 (1951); Neeld v. Giroux, 24 N.J. 224, 228-229, 131 A.2d 508, 511 (1957). 15 U.S.C. § 378 gives the United States District Courts jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of the Federal......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT