In re the Application of the Bond Printing Co.

48 A.2d 291, 24 N.J. Misc. 215, 1946 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 32
CourtMonmouth County Circuit Court, N.J.
DecidedJuly 30, 1946
StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.2d 291 (In re the Application of the Bond Printing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Monmouth County Circuit Court, N.J. primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Application of the Bond Printing Co., 48 A.2d 291, 24 N.J. Misc. 215, 1946 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 32 (N.J. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

Kinkead, C. C. J.

The Bond Printing Co., Inc., trading as the Ashtiry Park Sun, has filed a petition for a declaratory [216]*216judgment pursuant to the provisions of R. 8. 2:26-66, et seq.; N. J. 8. A. 2:26-66, et seq., adjudging the rights, status and legal relations of the Asbury Parle Sun under R. S. 35:1—2.1 and 35 :l-2.2; N. J. S. A. 35:1—2.1 and 35 :l-2.2, as amended by chapter 409, Pamph. L. 1941.

By consent of the petitioner, the Hew Jersey Press Association has been admitted as a party defendant to the proceeding for the reason that it has an interest therein, because the newspaper publishing business is concerned and affected by the legal question involved in this proceeding.

For many years, a newspaper known as the Red Bank' Daily Standard was published in the Borough of Bed Bank, which borough is approximately fifteen miles from the City of As-bury Park. In the latter part of 1945, the Bond Printing Co., Inc., was formed, and it purchased the assets of the Red Bank Daily Standard. In the month of December, 1945, an announcement was published in the Red Bank Daily Standard that said newspaper would thereafter be known as the Asbury Park Sun. Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of R. 8. 35:1—3; N. J. S. A. 35:1-3, there was filed and duly recorded in the office of the clerk of Monmouth County and in the office of the Secretary of State a certificate, whereby the name The Red Bank Daily Standard was changed to that of the Asbury Park Sun.

The publication office of the newspaper was moved from Bed Bank to Asbury Park. For a short period of time thereafter, no newspaper was published, but finally during the month of January, 1946, the Asbury Park Sun commenced publication.

The two statutes involved in this application specify the qualifications which are necessary to render any newspaper eligible for state, county or municipal legal advertising. The two statutes are practically identical, with the exception that R. 8. 35:1-2.1; N. J. S. A. 35:1-2.1, applies to state advertising, and R. S. 35:1-2.2; N. J. S. A. 35:1-2.2, applies to county and municipal advertising.

The requisites qualifying any newspaper for legal advertising are substantially as follows:

1. It shall be entirely printed in the English language.

[217]*2172. It shall be printed and published within the State of Hew Jersey.

3. It shall be a newspaper of general circulation, possessing an average news content of not less than thirty-five per centum (35%).

4. It shall have been published continuously in the municipality where its publication office is situate for not less them two years. (Italics supplied.)

5. It shall have been entered for two years as second class mail matter under the postal laws and regulations of the United States.

In this proceeding, we are principally concerned with the interpretation of the fourth qualification as above specified.

In December, 1945, the Bed Bank Daily Standard had possessed for many years all of the statutory qualifications requisite for legal advertising. Furthermore, it could have changed its name to the Asbury Park Sun without affecting its status, if it had continued to maintain its publication offiee in Bed Bank.

The issue, therefore, which this proceeding presents for decision is as to whether the Standard, after changing its name to the Asbury Park Sun, can also proceed to change its publication office from Bed Bank to Asbury Park without affecting its statutory qualifications.

There is nothing in the respective statutes which prohibits any legally qualified newspaper from doing what the Standard has done in the instant case, and there is nothing therein which sanctions such a course.

There are no cases in this state, or in any other jurisdiction, which are dispositive of the issue. There are a limited number of decisions which bear remotely on the points involved. In Lewis v. City of Newark, 74 N. J. L. 308; 65 Atl. Rep. 1039, the Newark Advertiser, an evening paper, published a morning paper called the Morning Star. This latter paper had been published for only two months, whereas the legislative act required that a newspaper must be continuously published for one year in order to qualify for publication of legal notices and proceedings. It was argued that the Advertiser published the Star as a morning edition, and thus it was in [218]*218effect the same newspaper. The court held that the titles were different and that the newspapers were separate and distinct within the contemplation of the laws governing the publication of ordinances.

In Montecano v. Liberty Warehouse Co., 121 N. J. L. 124; 1 Atl. Rep. (2d) 462, the Jersey Observer was printed in Hoboken and had its main office there. A branch office was established in Union City, to which some of the newspapers were dispatched and from there locally distributed. It was conceded that the printing was not done at the branch office, but it was also conceded that a newspaper may be published where it is not printed. The Court of Errors and Appeals held that the newspaper was not published in Union City and gave the definition that “The place of publication of a newspaper is where the paper is * * * first issued to be delivered or sent, by mail or otherwise to subscribers.”

In Bayer v. Mayor of Hoboken, 44 N. J. L. 131, a newspaper known as the Hoboken Advertiser had its office in Hoboken. In addition, the entire matter for the newspaper was composed, set up and placed in forms in Hoboken, after which the forms were sent over to Hew York City where the press work was done. The papers were then brought back to the office in Hoboken from whence they were issued to subscribers. The Supreme Court held that the newspaper, within the reason and spirit of the law, was printed and published in Hoboken.

In construing legislation, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the legislative intent and give effect to it. Mr. Justice Heher, speaking for the Supreme Coxirt in Lynch v. Long Branch, 111 N. J. L. 148 (at p. 151); 167 Atl Rep. 664, held:

“It is an established rule in the exposition of statutes that the intention of the legislature is to be derived from a view of the whole and of every part of the statute, taken and compared together. The real intention, when ascertained, will prevail over the literal sense of terms. When words are not explicit the intention is to be collected from the context and the occasion and the necessity of the law and from the mischief felt, and the remedy in view; and the intention is to [219]*219be taken or presumed according to what is consonant to reason and good discretion. In re Merrill, 88 N. J. Eq. 261, 273; 102 Atl. Rep. 400 .”

When a newspaper has become qualified by being published continuously for two years in the same municipality, can it then move about the state and change its publication office at will without affecting its status?

I think not.

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

Related

In re Merrill
102 A. 400 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1917)
Lewis v. Mayor of Newark
65 A. 1039 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 A.2d 291, 24 N.J. Misc. 215, 1946 N.J. Misc. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-application-of-the-bond-printing-co-njcirctmonmouth-1946.