City of Clifton v. Weber
This text of 208 A.2d 401 (City of Clifton v. Weber) 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.
Opinion
*267 The opinion of the court was delivered
The Appellate Division affirmed a conviction for violation of a municipal ordinance, City of Clifton v. Weber, 84 N. J. Super. 333 (1964), and one judge dissenting, the defendant prosecuted this appeal to us. R. R. 1:2-1 (b).
The ordinance regulates house-to-house soliciting or canvassing. Defendant charged the ordinance imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce.
It developed at the argument before us that the attack upon the ordinance was prompted by an assumption that the ordinance applied notwithstanding that the householder invited a salesman to call. The municipality disclaims that purpose and concedes the ordinance does not apply where there is an invitation from or prior appointment with the occupant. The municipality, however, does insist that here there was no such invitation or appointment, and the defendant concedes this to be the fact.
Since the defendant expressly refrains from assailing the ordinance as thus understood, and since a violation of the ordinance upon that premise is not disputed, no issue remains for our consideration and the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Proctor, Hall, Schettino and Haneman —7.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
208 A.2d 401, 44 N.J. 266, 1965 N.J. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-clifton-v-weber-nj-1965.