Borough of Vineland v. Kelk

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Borough of Vineland v. Kelk

63 A. 5, 73 N.J.L. 285, 44 Vroom 285, 1906 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 166

DecidedFebruary 26, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A. 5 (Borough of Vineland v. Kelk) 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

Borough of Vineland v. Kelk, 63 A. 5, 73 N.J.L. 285, 44 Vroom 285, 1906 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 166 (N.J. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This writ is directed to the borough of Vine-land and seeks to review a conviction of the defendant for violation of an ordinance of the borough before a justice of the peace of Cumberland county, who is described as acting recorder of the borough. The return is made by the recorder. No objection was made to the irregularity we have indicated, and the case was argued upon the merits.

The difficulty we find in the case is that the act relating to boroughs (Pamph. L. 1897, p. 285) makes no provision for an “acting recorder.” Proceedings for violations of borough ordinances may be had before the mayor (section 10) or the borough recorder (section 13). We find no statute authorizing a justice of the peace of the county to act as recorder. Proceedings must be set aside for lack of jurisdiction in the magistrate who convicted the defendant.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Swayze, J.

This writ is directed to the borough of Vine-land and seeks to review a conviction of the defendant for violation of an ordinance of the borough before a justice of the peace of Cumberland county, who is described as acting recorder of the borough. The return is made by the recorder. No objection was made to the irregularity we have indicated, and the case was argued upon the merits.

The difficulty we find in the case is that the act relating to boroughs (Pamph. L. 1897, p. 285) makes no provision for an “acting recorder.” Proceedings for violations of borough ordinances may be had before the mayor (section 10) or the borough recorder (section 13). We find no statute authorizing a justice of the peace of the county to act as recorder. Proceedings must be set aside for lack of jurisdiction in the magistrate who convicted the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A. 5, 73 N.J.L. 285, 44 Vroom 285, 1906 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borough-of-vineland-v-kelk-nj-1906.