Atlantic City v. Dehn

54 A. 220, 69 N.J.L. 233, 40 Vroom 233, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 24, 1903
StatusPublished

This text of 54 A. 220 (Atlantic City v. Dehn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlantic City v. Dehn, 54 A. 220, 69 N.J.L. 233, 40 Vroom 233, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195 (N.J. 1903).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These two cases were argued together. In the first case, which was No. Ill on the list, there was a conviction under an ordinance for refusing to carry passengers for Legal fare: The testimony fails to show that the prosecutor was one of the class named in the-ordinance, namely, that he was in the business of driving an omnibus for fare. lie may have been in private employ.

In No. 112 there is a conviction for refusing to carry a passenger. The proof is that the plaintiff in error was the driver of a “licensed bus.” There is nothing in the proofs to show that this compelled him to be a common carrier.

' In each case the conviction is set aside.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 A. 220, 69 N.J.L. 233, 40 Vroom 233, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-city-v-dehn-nj-1903.