Rupprecht v. Draney, 293.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation61 A.2d 220,137 N.J.L. 564
Docket NumberNo. 293.,293.
PartiesRUPPRECHT v. DRANEY, Magistrate, et al.
Decision Date08 September 1948

137 N.J.L. 564
61 A.2d 220

RUPPRECHT
v.
DRANEY, Magistrate, et al.

No. 293.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 8, 1948.


Certiorari proceeding by Robert Rupprecht against John J. Draney, Magistrate, etc., and others, to review conviction of prosecutor for violation of zoning law.

Writ of certiorari dismissed.

May term, 1948, before DONGES, COLIE, and EASTWOOD, JJ.

George I. Marcus and Ralph W. Chandless, both of Hackensack, for prosecutor.

Donald M. Waesche, of Teaneck, for respondents.

Walter H. Jones, of Hackensack, for amicus curiae.

DONGES, Justice.

This writ of certiorari brings up for review the conviction of the prosecutor upon two counts of a complaint charging various violations of the zoning law of the defendant, Township of Teaneck. The first count charged a violation of section 3 of the ordinance and the second count a violation of section 17 of the ordinance.

The building of the prosecutor, which was erected and used prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance as a public garage, which use was discontinued, fronts on Fort Lee Road, Teaneck, and is located for approximately

61 A.2d 221

70 feet of its length in a business district and for the remaining 30 feet in a class ‘A’ residential zone. It was used as a public garage and then as a storage garage until prosecutor commenced in June, 1946, using it as an auto body shop wherein he engaged in the business of auto body repairs and the painting of automobiles. Such a use is not one authorized in a class ‘A’ residential zone.

The first point raised is that the magistrate was without jurisdiction to convict the prosecutor on the first count of the complaint by reason of a defect in the complaint. The first count charged a violation, ‘In that contrary to the provisions of Section III of the aforesaid ordinance he did use and has used since June 12, 1946, the building and premises known as 237 East Fort Lee Road, Teaneck, New Jersey, which premises are situate in a class ‘A’ residential zone for a use prohibited in such zone, to wit: an Auto Body Shop, and has therein engaged in the repair and painting of auto bodies.'

We think this allegation sufficiently and clearly charges the prosecutor with a violation of the ordinance. ‘It is sufficient if they set out with clearness the offense charged and the substance of the part of the ordinance which has been violated, with reference to the title, the date, and section.’ Keeler v. Milledge, 24 N.J.L. 142, we think the count clearly apprised the prosecutor of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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