Perrine Terrace Land Co. v. Brennan

• Decision Date: 05 May 1925
• Docket Number: No. 204.,204.
• Parties: PERRINE TERRACE LAND CO. v. BRENNAN, Police Justice.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

128 A. 786

PERRINE TERRACE LAND CO.

v. BRENNAN, Police Justice.

No. 204.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 5, 1925.

The Perrine Terrace Land Company was convicted of violating an ordinance, and brings certiorari. Conviction and judgment set aside.

Argued October term, 1924, before KALISCH, BLACK, and CAMPBELL, JJ.

William E. Blackman, of Trenton, for prosecutor.

Romulus P. Rimo, of Trenton, for respondent.

KALISCH, J. The prosecutor was convicted in the police court of the city of Trenton on a complaint which charged that it, "on the 27th day of March, 1924, has adapted a building at 234 East Hanover street in the city of Trenton, county and state aforesaid, to a new use, and has constructed an appendage to said building which projects beyond the street contrary to, and in violation of, the third section of the ordinance of the city of Trenton entitled 'An ordinance concerning appendages to buildings projected into public streets,' approved November 16, 1923, by reason of which violation the said Perrine Terrace Land Company forfeited and became liable to pay unto the 'inhabitants of the city of Trenton' a penalty of $200."

The conviction, after reciting that the prosecutor was charged with a violation of section 3 of section of the ordinance of the city of Trenton, entitled "An ordinance concerning appendages to buildings projected into public streets, approved November 16, 1923," and that one Williams, assistant building inspector, was sworn and testified that alterations to the building were made since the passage of the ordinance, and that such alterations changed the use of the said building, and that steps remained after the alterations projecting on sidewalk in front of said building, and that certain exhibits were produced at the trial which are embodied in a stipulation of the facts of the case between the attorneys of the respective parties, and which stipulation of facts is made part of the conviction, concludes:

"Whereupon, etc., being satisfied of the guilt of the said Perrine Terrace Land Company, it was thereupon convicted by me, the said police justice, on the charge aforesaid, on this 17th day of June A. D. 1924. And it is thereupon ordered that the said Perrine Terrace Land Company pay a fine of $10 for each offense, and each day any such violation shall be deemed and taken to be a separate and distinct offense."

The stipulation between counsel of the respective parties, which stipulation is made part of the record in substance, is:

(1) That the premises in question are owned by the prosecutor, the Perrine Terrace Land Company, and consisted of a brick building; the front being built along the street line of East Hanover street, with stone steps projecting approximately four feet in front of said building in conformity with other houses and steps in the same block on said street.

(2) That the said building, including the steps, was built at least 30 years ago and long before the ordinance was passed.

(3) That the building was formerly used as a two-family apartment; that alterations have recently been made, and since the passage of the ordinance in question, and the building so altered so as to be now used as an office for the owners and others.

(4) That the alterations consisted in taking out of two front windows and placing in their stead one large window, cutting a new entrance which conforms to the ordinance, and the change of some partitions on the inside of the building; that the steps on appendage underwent no change, and remain as they always have been, and as other steps on the block; that five days' notice was given to remove the steps, which request was refused.

The prosecutor challenges, not only the validity of the conviction, but also the validity of the...