Richman v. Oard of Com'rs of City of Newark

Decision Date02 March 1939
Docket NumberNo. 224.,224.
PartiesRICHMAN v. OARD OF COM'RS OF CITY OF NEWARK.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Certiorari by Morris Richman to review the legality of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark prohibiting the sale of groceries between certain hours on Sundays and providing penalties for its violation.

Writ dismissed.

Argued January term, 1939, before CASE, DONGES, and PORTER, JJ.

Irving Mandelbaum, of Newark (Ralph H. Jacobson, of Newark, of counsel), for prosecutor.

James F. X. O'Brien, of Newark (Joseph A. Ward, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.

PORTER, Justice.

The question presented on this writ of certiorari is the legality of an ordinance adopted by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark, the respondents, which prohibits the sale of groceries on Sundays between the hours of 1 o'clock p. m. and 12 o'clock midnight, and provides penalties of fines or imprisonment for its violation.

The prosecutor is a grocer in Newark and also a licensed dealer in intoxicating beverages, at retail, for consumption off the premises. He contends that the practical effect of the ordinance is to prohibit him from selling groceries, but not from selling liquor on Sundays after 1 o'clock p. m. He says that the ordinance is discriminatory and unreasonable in prohibiting groceries only and not affecting other merchants dealing in general merchandise, many of whom also sell foodstuffs not classified as groceries. The argument is also made that the ordinance violates the Vice and Immorality statute, R.S. 2:207-6, which expressly makes unlawful the sale of any "wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, meat, fish, goods or chattels on Sunday."

We do not find that the ordinance is in violation of the statute in question. It is not inconsistent with the long-settled policy of the state as expressed by the legislature in the Vice and Immorality act, supra. On the contrary, it seeks to strengthen that policy by providing more severe penalties than the act calls for if sales of groceries are made during the afternoon or evening of Sunday. True it might have included all the hours of the day and also all merchandise, but the failure to do so does not invalidate it nor make lawful the sale of groceries during the hours before 1 p. m. Nor do we think it can be said that by making this prohibition of the sale of groceries there was any invitation given expressly or by implication that the law might be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Quick Chek Food Stores v. Springfield Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1980
    ...130 N.J.L. 1, 30 A.2d 892 (Sup.Ct.1943), aff'd o. b. 130 N.J.L. 496, 33 A.2d 872 (E. & A. 1943) (drug store); Richman v. Newark, 122 N.J.L. 180, 4 A.2d 501 (Sup.Ct.1939) (grocery store); Wagman v. Trenton, 102 N.J.L. 492, 134 A. 115 (Sup.Ct.1926) (auction sale of jewelry); Mister Softee v. ......
  • Hertz Washmobile System v. Village of South Orange
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • 20 Julio 1956
    ...113 (Sup.Ct.1918); Mazzarelli v. City of Elizabeth, 164 A. 898, 11 N.J.Misc. 150 (Sup.Ct.1933); Richman v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark, 122 N.J.L. 180, 4 A.2d 501 (Sup.Ct.1939). In City of Elizabeth v. Windsor-Fifth Avenue, Inc., supra (31 N.J.Super. at page 190, 106 A.2d a......
  • Gowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc Two Guys From v. Ginley Braunfeld v. Brown, HARRISON-ALLENTOW
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 29 Mayo 1961
    ...General Council of Borough of Paramus, 1960, 32 N.J. 296, 160 A.2d 841 (exceptions for classes of commodities); Richman v. Board of Com'rs, 1939, 122 N.J.L. 180, 4 A.2d 501 (banning businesses selling a class of commodities, semble); People v. Friedman, 1950, 302 N.Y. 75, 96 N.E.2d 184, app......
  • Auto-Rite Supply Co. v. Mayor and Township Committeemen of Woodbridge Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1957
    ...A. 13 (Sup.Ct.1918); Mazzarelli v. City of Elizabeth, 11 N.J.Misc. 150, 164 A. 898 (Sup.Ct.1933); Richman v. Board of Commissioners of City of Newark, 122 N.J.L. 180, 4 A.2d 501 (Sup.Ct.1939), which are relied on by appellants, I desire to reiterate the statement contained in my concurrence......
  • 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