Atlantic City v. Dehn

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Atlantic City v. Dehn

54 A. 220, 69 N.J.L. 233, 40 Vroom 233, 1903 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 195

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 24, 1903·Published

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

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.

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).

Pincite

54 A. 220 (Atlantic City v. Dehn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.