Court Opinion

ID: 9857239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:06:33.063209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:19.042947
License: Public Domain

Jacobs, J.
(dissenting). During oral argument the State acknowledged that the word “openly” in the statute was not to be ignored but was to be given meaning. Though it did not define them, it conceded that some Sunday sales on the premises by the defendant would not be violative of the statute. The concession has been ignored and the majority has given no effect whatever to the word “openly”; it seems to me that this departs from well settled principles of statutory construction. See Hoffman v. Hock, 8 N. J. *127397, 406 (1952); O’Rourke v. Board of Review, 24 N. J. 607, 610 (1957); In re General Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Xaviers, Inc., 66 N. J. Super. 561, 576 (App. Div. 1961); Evans v. Ross, 57 N. J. Super. 223, 229 (App. Div. 1959), certif. denied 31 N. J. 292 (1959). The dissenting opinion by the Chief Justice seeks to give fair meaning to the word and I subscribe to the conclusion he has reached. Since that leads me to a reversal of the defendant’s conviction I find no present occasion for dealing with the existence and scope of any constitutional requirements that seventh day observers be afforded exemptions from Sunday legislation. See Brennan and Stewart, JJ., dissenting in Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599, 81 S. Ct. 1144, 6 L. Ed. 2d 563, 570 (1961).