Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matthews v. City of Asbury Park

Decided: July 30, 1934.

AMELIA V. MATTHEWS AND MARY A. HALL, PROSECUTORS,
v.
CITY OF ASBURY PARK, ROLAND H. LOOG, CLERK OF SAID CITY, AND JOHN JACOBS, RESPONDENTS; AMELIA V. MATTHEWS AND MARY A. HALL, PROSECUTORS, V. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, ROLAND H. LOOG, CLERK OF SAID CITY, AND SAMUEL BRODY, RESPONDENTS



On certiorari.

For the prosecutors, Hobart & Minard.

For the respondents, John Milton.

Before Justice Perskie, at chambers, pursuant to statute.

Perskie

PERSKIE, J. Pamph. L. 1933, ch. 436, p. 1180, as amended by Pamph. L. 1934, ch. 85, p. 218, provides:

"Every applicant for a license shall cause a notice of intention to make such application to be published in a form prescribed by rules and regulations, once a week for two weeks successively in a newspaper, printed in the English language, published and circulated in the municipality in which the licensed premises are located * * *."

In pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement, the city of Asbury Park, operating under the Municipal Manager act, did, on July 3d, 1934, issue a liquor license to Samuel Brody, at N.W. corner Third and Ocean avenues, and to John

Jacobs, at S.W. corner Second and Ocean avenues, both in Asbury Park, by a vote of two to one (notation of minutes of said meeting: "Mayor Dennis and Councilman Groce not eligible to vote"). Neither prosecutrices, nor any one else appears to have made any objection thereto either to the issuing body, i.e., the city of Asbury Park, or the commissioner of the state department of alcoholic beverage control.

There is no claim that the licenses were obtained by fraud or deceit. Freeman v. Hague, 106 N.J.L. 137.

But, it does appear, and it is not controverted, in the case of John Jacobs, that he has been in business at the given address for over ten years. He employes fifty-one people and ten extras over the week ends, and has a weekly payroll of over $700. He has expended more than $10,000 in furnishing his beer garden, and has recently signed a lease for four years at a rental for the period of $10,750.

That the respondent, Brody, conducts a restaurant and bar at the given address, and has been in business at that location for over sixteen years. He employes twenty people and has a pay-roll of $427.50 weekly. He has expended more than $18,000 in furnishing his beer garden, and occupies the premises under a four-year lease calling for a rental of $4,000, plus ten per cent. of the gross receipts of the business over $40,000.

In the Jacobs case the premises of the prosecutrix, Amelia V. Matthews, is located three and one-half blocks from his premises; the premises of the prosecutrix, Mary A. Hall, is located five and one-half blocks from his premises. In the Brody case it appears that the Matthews premises is located four and one-half blocks from his premises and that the Hall premises is located six and one-half blocks therefrom. In the territory between the premises of the prosecutrices and that of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.