Crosson v. Mayor of Rutherford

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Crosson v. Mayor of Rutherford

48 A. 514, 66 N.J.L. 120, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 181

DecidedFebruary 25, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A. 514 (Crosson v. Mayor of Rutherford) 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

Crosson v. Mayor of Rutherford, 48 A. 514, 66 N.J.L. 120, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 181 (N.J. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Memoranda of the court by

Fort, J.

This conviction cannot be sustained. The complaint in this case fails to negative the proviso in the section of the ordinance under which the conviction was had. Where the penalty is laid by a penal statute or ordinance, and there is a proviso in the section laying the penalty which excepts out of the section certain places, things or persons, the complaint must contain proper averments to show that the defendant sought to be summarily dealt with was not within the exception. The complaint in this ease should have averred that the vehicle not licensed was not used in connection with any [122]*122lively stable. Doughty v. Conover, 13 Vroom 193; Jacobus v. Meskill, 27 Id. 255.

It is. true the cases just cited relate to suits lor penalties for the violation of a statute, but there is no ground upon which we -can distinguish summary proceedings to enforce penalties for the violation of statutes from similar proceedings for the violation or ordinances.

The conviction brought up will be set aside.

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

Memoranda of the court by

Fort, J.

This conviction cannot be sustained. The complaint in this case fails to negative the proviso in the section of the ordinance under which the conviction was had. Where the penalty is laid by a penal statute or ordinance, and there is a proviso in the section laying the penalty which excepts out of the section certain places, things or persons, the complaint must contain proper averments to show that the defendant sought to be summarily dealt with was not within the exception. The complaint in this ease should have averred that the vehicle not licensed was not used in connection with any [122]*122lively stable. Doughty v. Conover, 13 Vroom 193; Jacobus v. Meskill, 27 Id. 255.

It is. true the cases just cited relate to suits lor penalties for the violation of a statute, but there is no ground upon which we -can distinguish summary proceedings to enforce penalties for the violation of statutes from similar proceedings for the violation or ordinances.

The conviction brought up will be set aside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A. 514, 66 N.J.L. 120, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosson-v-mayor-of-rutherford-nj-1901.