105 N.J. Super. 347 - State v. Kinsley

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1995

16 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Before Judges SULLIVAN, FOLEY and LEWIS.

¶2Mr. Martin A. Herman argued the cause for appellant.

¶3Mr. Joseph P. Schiappa, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney; Mr. Stephen Skillman, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel).

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5The Gloucester County Court adjudged defendant guilty of violating N.J.S.A. 23:5-28. That section proscribes the pollution of water by permitting deleterious or poisonous substances to be turned into or allowed to run into any of the waters of this State in quantities sufficient to destroy life or disturb the habits of fish or birds inhabiting the same. The statutory fine of $500 for the first offense was imposed. Defendant appeals.

¶6We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Judge Kramer for the County Court, whose opinion is reported in 103 N.J. Super. 190 (Cty. Ct. 1968).

¶7SULLIVAN, S.J.A.D. (concurring)

¶8Defendant has not raised the defense of double jeopardy (he was found not guilty of the charge in the municipal court). See Dept. of Conservation & Economic Development v. Scipio,88 N.J. Super. 315 (App. Div. 1965), certification denied 45 N.J. 598 (1965). On this basis I vote to affirm.