Town of Montclair v. Amend

• Citation: 68 A. 1067
• Parties: TOWN OF MONTCLAIR v. AMEND.
• Decision Date: 02 March 1908
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

68 A. 1067

TOWN OF MONTCLAIR

v. AMEND.

Supreme Court of Now Jersey.

March 2, 1908.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by Thomas Amend to review an ordinance of the town of Montclair. Dismissed.

Argued November term, 1907, before VOORHEES and MINTURN, JJ.

Frank E. Bradner, for prosecutor. Robert M. Boyd, Jr., for defendant.

MINTURN, J. The town council of Montclair adopted an ordinance on March 30, 1904, entitled "An ordinance to establish fire limits within the town of Montclair and to provide for the proper enforcement thereof," which provided, inter alia, that thereafter no frame building or wooden building should be erected within certain fire limits specified therein without the consent of the town council "when the circumstances of the particular case or cases in their judgment require such exception, under a penalty of ten dollars for each day that such prohibited building whether complete or not, stands or remains within such prescribed limits." On December 11, 1905, the council adopted a further ordinance, entitled "An ordinance to regulate and control the inspection, construction, alteration and repair of buildings in the town of Montclair," in which it was provided that "the removal of any wooden building or structure from without to within the fire limits is absolutely prohibited." And the owner of any lot upon which a building shall be placed in violation of the ordinance is subjected to a penalty of $20, or, in the event of nonpayment, to imprisonment for a term of 30 days. The defendant, upon complaint of the inspector of buildings of the town, was found guilty by the recorder of Montclair of violating the provisions of the latter ordinance by removing a covered structure called a "lunch wagon" from without to within the fire limits; and was fined $20 for such violation. An appeal was taken to the Essex common pleas, where the conviction was affirmed, and upon that affirmation the writ in this case was allowed. The reasons advanced by the prosecutor for a reversal of this judgment so far as they relate to the validity of the ordinances in question, we do not consider tenable. The ordinance establishing fire limits was authorized by chapter 222, p. 675, Laws 1902. The passage of the ordinance of December 11, 1905, was within the general police powers of the town council for the proper enforcement of the ordinance prescribing fire limits. Laws 1895, p. 218. The fact that the subject of contention here was originally a lunch wagon...