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.

Shedden v. Hagmann

Decided: March 7, 1942.

WILLIAM A. SHEDDEN, PROSECUTOR,
v.
VERNON D. HAGMANN, RECORDER OF THE TOWNSHIP OF FRANKLIN, SOMERSET COUNTY, NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT



On certiorari.

For the prosecutor, Strong & Strong (John V. R. Strong, of counsel).

For the defendant, John Macko (Edward Sachar, of counsel).

Before Justices Bodine, Perskie and Porter.

Porter

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PORTER, J. The prosecutor was convicted of violating an ordinance of the Township of Franklin (hereinafter called Franklin) which prohibits the keeping or harboring of any dog without first obtaining a license so to do. The legality of that conviction is before us for review.

The facts are not in dispute. Within the boundaries of Franklin is located the Town of East Millstone (hereinafter callen East Millstone) which was incorporated by act of the legislature in 1873. Pamph. L. 1873, p. 221. Prosecutor did live in that town and did keep dogs for which he had no license. The second section of the act creating East Millstone provided for the annual election of a board of commissioners for the purpose of carrying out the objects and purposes

of the act. Under section five of the act their duties are defined and are restricted to the management and control of public streets, sidewalks, roads and public commons and of fire apparatus for the suppression of fires. Section six of the act provides that the commissioners shall not have power to levy any tax or assessment upon the owners of real estate except for the construction and repair of sidewalks, that taxes upon real estate and for roads and their improvements, & c., shall be assessed by Franklin and that any road tax within East Millstone shall be paid over to its town treasurer by the collector of Franklin. The voters of East Millstone vote for the officials of Franklin as well as for the election of town commissioners.

The legislature may incorporate a municipality within a municipality for special and limited purposes as was done here. Pancoast v. Troth, 34 N.J.L. 377 (at pp. 386 and 387) (reversed but on other grounds); Auryansen v. Hackensack Improvement Commission, 45 Id. 113. But compare Midland v. Maywood, 80 Id. 76; Township of Bernards v. Allen, 61 Id. 228; Van Cleve v. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, 71 Id. 574.

However, East Millstone assumed and exercised much wider powers than those given it under the act creating it. It has its own school system. It has adopted ordinances generally regulating the conduct of the people to secure the peace and good order of the town and for the licensing and regulation of the vending of meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, patent medicines and other articles. Its various ordinances provide penalties for their violation and confer jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints thereunder upon any justice of the peace residing in the Town of East Millstone. It has its own police department. It also acted as a municipal entity in 1934 when it held a referendum vote on the question of whether or not the retail sale of intoxicating beverages should be permitted in the town, under the authority of Pamph. L. 1933, ch. 436, ยง 41.

The Home Rule Act, Pamph. L. 1917, ch. 152, art. 1, p. 319, brings the town within its provisions by defining a municipality or municipal ...


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.