State v. Guida
| Decision Date | 26 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 29.,29. |
| Citation | 196 A. 711 |
| Parties | STATE v. GUIDA. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Nicholas Guida was convicted of violating the Small Loan Act. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 118 N.J.L. 289, 192 A. 445, affirming the judgment of conviction, he appeals.
Affirmed.
George S. Silzer, of Newark, for plaintiff in error. William A. Wachenfeld, Prosecutor of the Pleas, and Joseph E. Conlon and C. William Caruso, Asst. Prosecutors, all of Newark, for the State.
We concur in the conclusions of the Supreme Court, as expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie.
Although not raised in the quarter sessions, we conceive that the constitutional questions raised here and in the Supreme Court should be determined. They are fundamental. If the statute contravenes the Constitution of New Jersey, the judgment under review is a nullity. If that is so, the indictment does not charge a crime. Public policy is ill-served by convictions as for crime under a void statutory provision.
The first insistence is that the act, chapter 62 of the Laws of 1932, p. 94, N.J.St.Annual 1932, § 35 —22 et seq., does not satisfy the mandate of paragraph 4, section 7 of article 4 of the State Constitution, in that the object is not adequately expressed in the title. More specifically, it is said that the title "only makes provision for punishment for violation of the rate section," and not for the conduct of a "small loan" business without the license prescribed by section 1 of the act, N.J.St. Annual 1932, § 35 —22.
We do not so view it. The pertinent parts of the title read thus: "An Act to define, license and regulate the business of making loans or advancements in the amount or of the value of three hundred dollars ($300.00) or less, * * * at a greater rate of interest than the lender would be permitted by law to charge if not licensed hereunder, prescribing the rates of interest and charges therefor and penalties for the violation thereof." This language indicates quite plainly, it seems to us, that there may be embodied in the enactment, as in fact there was, a general clause prescribing penalties for the violation of its provisions. The adverb "thereof" refers to the entire statute and not alone to the section fixing interest rates.
The office of the title, in the constitutional sense, is to give notice of the general effect of the legislation to "one conversant with the existing state of the law." Its validity is not to be determined by The general test of constitutional sufficiency in this regard is whether the titular expression of the object is deceptive. "Hypercriticism is utterly out of place" in appraising the title. The sole requirement is that it "shall express its object in a general way so as to be intelligible to the ordinary reader"; and it is the settled rule that a statute will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Novembrino
...343 U.S. 908, 72 S.Ct. 638, 96 L.Ed. 1326 (1952); State v. Guida, 118 N.J.L. 289, 297, 192 A. 445 (Sup.Ct.1937), aff'd, 119 N.J.L. 464, 196 A. 711 (E. & A. 1938); State v. Merra, 103 N.J.L. 361, 137 A. 575 (E. & A. 1927); State v. Cortese, 104 N.J.L. 447, 139 A. 923 (E. & A. 1927), aff'g, 4......
-
Kelleher v. Minshull
... ... by J. J. Kelleher, doing business as Credit Finance Company, ... against J. C. Minshull, as Supervisor of Banking of the State ... of Washington, and another, to test the constitutionality of ... the Small Loan Act. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff ... 73, 164 A. 563; ... Levin v. Morris Plan Corp., 1934, 174 A. 237, 12 ... N.J.Misc. 666; State v. Guida, 1938, 119 N.J.L. 464, ... 196 A. 711 ... New York: People v. Blumenthal, Sup.Ct. 1936, 157 ... Misc. 943, 284 N.Y.S. 873; ... ...
-
State v. Engel
... ... 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), see Eleuteri v. Richman, 26 N.J. 506, 141 A.2d 46 (1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 843, 79 S.Ct. 52, 3 L.Ed.2d 77 (1958); State v. Alexander, 7 N.J. 585, 83 A.2d 441 (1951), cert. den. 343 U.S. 908, 72 S.Ct. 638, 96 L.Ed. 1326 (1952); State v. Guida, 118 N.J.L. 289, 192 A. 445 (Sup.Ct.1937), aff'd 119 ... Page 367 ... N.J.L. 464, 196 A. 711 (E. & A.1938); State v. Merra, 103 N.J.L. 361, 137 A. 575 (E. & A.1927); State v. Cortese, 104 N.J.L. 447, 139 A. 923 (E. & A.1927); State v. Lyons, 99 N.J.L. 301, 122 A. 758 (E. & A.1923), ... ...
-
Smith v. City of Newark
...of Pasaic v. Consolidated Police, etc., Pension Fund Commission, above, 18 N.J. (137), at page 146, 113 A.2d 22; State v. Guida, 119 N.J.L. 464, 466, 196 A. 711 (E. & A.1938). Within the range of this discretion the Legislature may enact a statute as a general law which operates 'equally up......