State by Butler v. C.B.S. Enterprises, A--112--52

• Decision Date: 13 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. A--112--52,A--112--52
• Citation: 24 N.J.Super. 512,95 A.2d 16
• Parties: STATE by BUTLER v. C.B.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 512

24 N.J.Super. 512

95 A.2d 16

STATE by BUTLER v. C.B.S. ENTERPRISES, Inc.

No. A--112--52.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued Feb. 2. 1953.

Decided Feb. 13, 1953.

William J. O'Hagan, Asbury Park, argued the cause for appellant (George S. Skokos, Stout & O'Hagan, Asbury Park, attorneys).

Abraham Frankel, Asbury Park, argued the cause for respondent.

Before Judges EASTWOOD, BIGELOW, and JAYNE.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JAYNE, J.A.D.

On July 4, 1952, there was in effect in the City of Asbury Park an ordinance designated as No. 612, entitled 'An ordinance governing, regulating, and fixing fees of mercantile licenses in the City of Asbury Park, New Jersey, and regulating business licensed.' The ordinance rendered it unlawful 'to engage in or carry on any business, trade or calling, in using any wagon, vehicle, stand, store, or other place, or sell or offer for sale any goods, wares or merchandise' within the city without having first obtained a license.

The presently relevant portion of section 6 of the ordinance declared that 'No license provided for by this ordinance shall be transferred from one person to another person and no license shall cover any other place of business than that for which it was issued.'

Pursuant to applications addressed to the city, two licenses were issued to the defendant on June 27, 1952, to conduct at each of the specified locations the business classified as skill bingo. License No. 721 for a fee of $545 authorized the pursuit of the business by the defendant at premises known as Nos. 104--106 Fourth Avenue. License No. 722 accorded to the defendant for a fee of $750 the privilege to conduct the same kind of business at Nos. 102--106 Fifth Avenue.

It is acknowledged that the defendant conducts the so-called business in both premises simultaneously and concomitantly by means of one microphonic device, thus providing the identical amusement (shall we say the one and the same game and succession of games) in which the patrons at each location compete separately for a single prize. We are obliged to confess our inability more specifically to describe the functional utility of this microphonic device because of our personal ignorance of the techniques of skill bingo and the paucity of information in that particular in either the appendix or the briefs.

On July 5, 1952, the license inspector of the city filed in the municipal court a formal complaint in which he charged the defendant with the violation of that portion of section 6 of the ordinance to which reference has been made, in that the privilege granted to the defendant was in each instance confined to the premises designated in the license and that the business at the two licensed locations was being conducted in conjunction.

The defendant was convicted and fined $25 by the municipal court and on appeal by the Monmouth County Court, from which latter judgment it appeals.

The question addressed to us is a narrow one. Does the restrictive provision of the ordinance which reads 'No license shall cover any other place of business than that for which it was issued' prohibit the one licensee from conducting the licensed business at two licensed locations by means of the use of one instrumentality...