State v. Mayor

• Decision Date: 10 November 1902
• Parties: STATE GREINER et al., Prosecutors) v. MAYOR, ETC. OF CITY OF HOBOKEN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

53 A. 693

68 N.J.L. 592

STATE GREINER et al., Prosecutors)

v. MAYOR, ETC. OF CITY OF HOBOKEN.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 10, 1902.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of Alfred G. Greiner and others, to review a summary conviction.

Argued June term, 1902, before GARRISON and COLLINS, JJ.

John J. Fallon, for plaintiff.

James F. Minturn, for defendant.

COLLINS, J. This writ brings up the conviction of Alfred G. Greiner of "having, on December 12, 1901, permitted the assembling of females at the saloon 41 Third street, in the city of Hoboken, New Jersey, for the purpose of enticing customers, in violation of an ordinance of the city of Hoboken entitled 'An ordinance concerning inns and taverns and other places of public entertainment in the city of Hoboken and to prevent the sale of intoxicating drinks by females, approved July 25, 1901.'" The validity of the ordinance cited has already been adjudged by this court. City of Hoboken v. Goodman, 51 Atl. 1092. The difference between this case and that is that Greiner had a license granted under the city charter, which statute authorizes the city council to grant licenses "to keep a house of public entertainment for the sale of a traffic in spirituous, vinous or other intoxicating drink or drinks." Such license was granted April 30, 1901, for one year, unless, sooner revoked, and was upon condition that the licensee should, during the term, "keep and observe all the laws of this state and ordinances of the city relative to inns and taverns and houses of public entertainment." The license fee exacted was not proved, but under general legislation it could not have been less than $250. The argument for the licensee is that it was not competent for the city council, after receiving a license fee not merely regulative, to impose on him during the term of his license a restriction nonexistent when the license was granted. A reasonable construction of the condition of the license would seem to subject it to future as well as extant general ordinances of the city; but, apart from this, traffic in intoxicating drinks, nominally illegal under the policy of this state, is always subject to fair police regulation. The authorities are collected in the Goodman Case, above cited. The only question in this cause is whether the regulation disregarded was a fair one. We think it was. It is difficult to imagine a course of conducting a liquor saloon more deserving of reprobation...