State v. Beckert., 297.
| Decision Date | 08 September 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 297.,297. |
| Citation | 137 N.J.L. 562,61 A.2d 213 |
| Parties | STATE v. BECKERT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Marion Beckert was convicted of violating borough ordinance providing for the licensing of dogs, and she brings certiorari.
Writ of certiorari dismissed.
May term, 1948, before DONGES, COLIE, and EASTWOOD, JJ.
James F. Patten, of Perth Amboy, for prosecutor.
Jesse B. Leslie, and George F. Losche, both of Hackensack, for respondent.
This writ of certiorari brings up the conviction of prosecutrix for violation on a number of occasions of section 3 of an ordinance of the Borough of Leonia entitled ‘An ordinance providing for the licensing of dogs and the duties of the Chief of Police and the Police Department in connection therewith in the Borough of Leonia.’ Section 3 as amended reads as follows:
It is the last sentence of this section that is under attack here.
The principal complaint is that the ordinance is invalid because it is in conflict with the statute of the state respecting the regulation of dogs, R.S. 4:19-15.1 et seq., N.J.S.A. That statute provides for the licensing of dog kennels but does not, as pointed out by prosecutrix, authorize a municipality to prohibit dog kennels within such municipality. In the instant case the testimony, as recited in the return to the writ, was that there were 39 dogs upon the premises ‘kept in pens all in one main building but each had separate entrance to a pen; that most of the dogs were full grown; that only 6 or 7 of them were puppies; that said full grown dogs did not have license tags upon them.’
Prosecutor presented no evidence upon the trial of the case, although she did, through counsel, cross-examine the witnesses for the Borough. There is no proof that she operated a dog kennel within the definition of the statute. There is nothing in the record to indicate that it was raised as a defense below that she operated a kennel such as was recognized by the statute, and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woll v. Monaghan Tp., 1888 C.D. 2007.
...where it was "debatable" that limitation was substantially related to controlling problems of dog noise and odor); State v. Beckert, 137 N.J.L. 562, 61 A.2d 213 (1948) (upholding an ordinance prohibiting the ownership of "more than three dogs of licensing age" within a designated 7. Other c......
-
Signore v. Rizzolo, L--4892
...ordinance is presumed to be reasonable and the burden of proving its unreasonableness is upon the party attacking it. See State v. Beckert, 137 N.J.L. 562, 61 A.2d 213, affirmed 1 N.J. 570, 64 A.2d 881 (Sup.Ct.1949); American Grocery Co. v. Board of Commissioners of New Brunswick, 124 N.J.L......
-
Gates v. City of Sanford, 89-1820
...classification; however, other cases have rejected this view. See State v. Mueller, 220 Wis. 435, 265 N.W. 103 (1936); State v. Beckert, 137 N.J.L. 562, 61 A.2d 213 (1948); People v. Yeo, 103 Mich.App. 418, 302 N.W.2d 883 We find that the city's ordinance limiting each residence to three do......
-
People v. Yeo
...that may be kept within the municipal limits or within designated districts thereof.' " (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Beckert, 137 N.J.L. 562, 61 A.2d 213 (1948), upholding against constitutional attack an ordinance prohibiting the ownership of "more than three dogs of licensing age" ......