State v. Kromer, 3--628
| Decision Date | 16 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--628,3--628 |
| Citation | 112 A.2d 804,34 N.J.Super. 465 |
| Parties | The STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lillian KROMER, Defendant-Appellant. . Law Division. New Jersey |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
Carl H. Warsinski, Cranford, for Cranford Township.
Donald S. Kates, Hackensack, for appellant.
FELLER, J.C.C.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of the Municipal Court of the Township of Cranford pursuant to an ordinance of said township.
The provisions of said ordinance which are pertinent to this appeal are as follows:
'Section 15.01. Subject to the provisions of the Revised Statutes (45:24--Art. 2) with respect to hawking, peddling and vending by veterans and exempt volunteer firemen; no hawkers, peddlers, canvassers, solicitors, junk dealers, or distributors of advertising shall conduct business within the Township of Cranford without a municipal license.
'Section 15.02 * * * 'a solicitor' is a person selling goods by sample and taking orders for future delivery by self or other means. 'A canvasser' is a person who solicits orders for books, periodicals, papers, merchandise or services to be delivered or performed in the future by his principles, or who collects funds or photographs, size 1 1 and
'Section 15.03 Applications for licenses shall be made to the Police Department accompanied by two identifying photographs, size 1 1 and by fees as follows, which fees shall be returned if license is not granted.
'Section 15.05 * * * for canvassers, solicitors, and advertising distributors, licenses and badges shall expire in 30 days, but shall be renewable for 30 day periods for one-half the initial fee in each case.
'Section 15.10 Any person violating the terms of this chapter shall be subject to a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for 90 days, or both, and each day on which violation occurs shall be deemed a separate violation.'
On November 10, 1954 the defendant Mrs. Lillian Kromer was apprehended while attempting to solicit an order for cosmetics by calling at the home of a Cranford resident. She was a sales representative for Avon Products, Inc., a New York corporation. The merchandise that Mrs. Kromer was carrying at the time was not for sale. It was sample merchandise and if an order were secured, it would not have been filled from the sample merchandise. Such order would later have been forwarded directly to, and filled by, Avon Products, Inc. at its plant in Suffern, New York, from which shipment would be made to Mrs. Kromer for subsequent delivery to the customer.
Mrs. Kromer made no application for a license in accordance with said ordinance, and when she was apprehended on November 10, 1954 attempting to solicit an order she was without badge or license as therein provided. On November 29, 1954 the defendant was tried and found guilty and a judgment of conviction was entered and defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $25.
Mrs. Kromer contends that she was engaged in interstate commerce at the time she was apprehended on November 10, 1954.
She further contends that:
(1) Chapter 15 of the Code of General Ordinances of the Township of Cranford was not intended to cover any transaction forming a part of interstate commerce, or
(2) if so intended, said ordinance is in contravention of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution which provides that the Congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the several states. See United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
In the case of Dimmig v. Mann, 120 N.J.L. 442, 200 A. 545 (Sup.Ct.1938),...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moyant v. Borough of Paramus
...from the basic object of protecting against fraud one.' (327 U.S. at pages 429--431, local artisans or other persons (beyond See also State v. Kromer, supra (34 N.J.Super. normally enter a home in the borough to perform services or deliver goods, to have certification of freedom from diseas......
-
Materials Research Corp. v. Metron, Inc.
...commerce, on the authority of Nippert v. Richmond, Supra; Moyant v. Paramus, 30 N.J. 528, 154 A.2d 9 (1959); State v. Kromer, 34 N.J.Super. 465, 112 A.2d 804 (Cty.Ct.1955). See also Clifton v. Weber, 84 N.J.Super. 333, 202 A.2d 186 (App.Div.1964), aff'd 44 N.J. 266, 208 A.2d 401 ...
-
Taxi's Inc. v. Borough of East Rutherford
...314 U.S. 390, 62 S.Ct. 311, 86 L.Ed. 294 (1941); Moyant v. Paramus, supra, 30 N.J. at 551-552, 154 A.2d 9; State v. Kromer, 34 N.J.Super. 465, 468, 112 A.2d 804 (Cty.Ct.1955). And although the State is free to allow municipalities to erect barriers against each other affecting commerce over......
-
State v. Mauer
...citation of a few fundamental authorities. Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U.S. 416, 66 S.Ct. 586, 90 L.Ed. 760 (1946); State v. Kromer, 34 N.J.Super. 465, 112 A.2d 804 (Cty.Ct.1955); Moyant v. Paramus, Defendant has contended that the ordinance was passed pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:52--1 and 2, and ......