State v. City of Camden
| Decision Date | 19 July 1899 |
| Citation | 43 A. 1069,63 N.J.L. 501 |
| Parties | STATE (MILLER, Prosecutor) v. CITY OF CAMDEN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of George Miller, to review a summary conviction before the recorder of the city of Camden for violating an ordinance of the excise board. Conviction set aside.
Argued February term, 1899, before DEPUE, VAN SYCKEL, and GUMMERE, JJ.
Frederick A. Rex and Harrison H. Voorhees, for prosecutor.
E. G. C. Bleakly, for defendant.
The writ in this case brings up for review the record of a summary conviction had before the recorder of the city of Camden for violating the ordinance of the excise board of that city regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors.
The first question presented to us for consideration is whether the recorder of Camden has jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints for violations of the provisions of the ordinance referred to, and to punish those who are found guilty. That such jurisdiction has been conferred upon him by the ordinance itself appears from an inspection of that instrument, which was sent up with the proceedings now under review; but the prosecutor contends that such delegation of power by the excise board was beyond its authority. By section 1 of the act establishing boards of excise in the various cities of this state (P. L. 1886, p. 397), power is conferred upon such boards to make, amend, or repeal ordinances and by-laws to license and regulate or prohibit inns, taverns, and beer saloons, and to prescribe and enforce penalties for the violation of such ordinances; and such penalties are to be enforced "in the same manner as any other penalties are enforced in any such city." In order, therefore, to determine the question whether the authority conferred by the board of excise of Camden upon the recorder was within its power, it is only necessary to turn to the charter of that city, and ascertain whether the recorder was clothed with power to try parties charged with violating other municipal ordinances, and to impose penalties therefor. An examination of the forty-fourth section of the charter discloses that such power is conferred upon him in express terms. P. L. 1871, p. 234. The recorder therefore had jurisdiction to hear and determine the complaint against the prosecutor.
The second ground upon which we are asked to set aside this conviction is that the judgment of conviction is insufficient in form and substance. This criticism upon it is without merit. It contains a recital of the complaint, of the process by which the prosecutor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heyward v. State, 51.
...126 Ga. 749, 55 S. E. 1042; State v. Sturgis, 110 Me. 96, 99, 85 A. 474, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 443; Miller v. Camden, 63 N. J. Law, 501, 504, 43 A. 1069, Under the condition imposed, the failure of the convict satisfactorily to testify before the grand jury is what the court punishes by the s......
-
Wagner v. United States
...v. People, 38 Mich. 756; People v. Carroll, 44 Mich. 371, 6 N. W. 871; Turner v. Smith, 90 Mich. 309, 51 N. W. 282; Miller v. City of Camden, 63 N. J. Law, 500, 43 A. 1069; Roop v. State, 59 N. J. Law, 487, 34 A. 885; State v. Perkins, 82 N. C. 682; In re Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, 11 S. E. If t......
-
In re De Londi, 225.
...down to the passing of the sentence, which would sustain a valid judgment." Wright v. State, 103 Ala. 95, 15 So. 506; Miller v. Camden, 63 N. J. Law, 501, 43 A. 1069; Boggs v. State (Tex. Cr. App. 1897) 40 S. W. 306; Williams v. State (Tex. Cr. App. 1897) 40 S. W. 283; Wood v. State, 37 Tex......
-
In re Lucas
... ... 88; Brownbridge v. People, 38 ... Mich. 751; Matter of Hoffman, 1 N.Y. Crim. Rep. 484; ... State v. Perkins, 82 N.C. 681; In re ... Deaton, 105 N.C. 59, 11 S.E. 244; State v. Camden, 63 ... crime of assault for violation of sec. 667 of the Rev ... Ordinances of Boise City, and thereupon was fined the sum of ... $ 50. He appealed to the district court and gave an ... ...