Case Name: PHILIP LIPSHUTZ ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. ISADORE KAPLAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1928-10-18
Citations: 6 N.J. Misc. 970
Docket Number: 
Parties: PHILIP LIPSHUTZ ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. ISADORE KAPLAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 970–971

Head Matter:
PHILIP LIPSHUTZ ET AL., PROSECUTORS, v. ISADORE KAPLAN ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Argued October 2, 1928
Decided October 18, 1928.
Before Justices Minturn, Black and Campbell.
For the prosecutors, Edward Griffin and William Rutin.
For the defendants, Rosario S. Mazzola and James Benny.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari was allowed in this case to review a resolution of the board of commissioners of the city of Bayonne, dated June 5th, 1928, granting a permit or license to the defendant Isadore Kaplan to operate a poultry market at No. 78 West Twentieth street, Bayonne, New Jersey, and to transfer a license No. 1 held by him from No. 75 West Twentieth street, Bayonne, to No. 78 West Twentieth street, Bayonne, New Jersey.
The prosecutor urges several reasons for setting aside the resolution — -first, failure to comply with section 2 of the ordinance under which the resolution was granted; second, failure to comply with section 3 of the ordinance; third, failure to comply with section 7 of the ordinance.
Under the evidence in the record these reasons are not-tenable. (Testimony of Morris Brodman, page 43, et seq., of the record.) Our examination of the record, together with the reasons filed for setting aside the resolution, lead us to the conclusion that the defendant Isadore Kaplan, previous to the passage of the resolution by the board of commissioners, complied with all the provisions of the cited ordinance. We find no substantial reasons for disturbing the resolution granting the permits. The action of the board of commissioners of the city of Bayonne, granting the permits to Isadore Kaplan, dated June 5th, 1928, is affirmed, and the writ of certiorari is denied, with costs.