Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 N.J. Super. 80

83 A.2d 826

State v. Rogers & Sheldon, Inc.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. ROGERS & SHELDON, INC., DEFENDANT.

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1951-10-18

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1977

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The defendant argued that the scales were or might have been inaccurate at the time the weighing took place. The testimony does not indicate that thé scales were inaccurate.” — the court taking the position in New Jersey that the weight is to be considered accurate unless the accuracy of the scales is challenged. There was, of course, no challenge made in the present case.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Commonwealth v. Thurmond

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1951-10-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*81Mr. Oscar F. Laurie, Assistant County Prosecutor, Morris County, attorney for plaintiff.

¶2Mr. John H. Grossman, attorney for defendant.

¶3BARRETT, J.C.C.

¶4The defendant appealed from a conviction in the Municipal Court of Parsippany-Troy Hills Township on a charge of violating R.S. 39:3-84.3. The testimony indicates that on February 14, 1951, defendant's truck and load was weighed by a state trooper. The load actually weighed 27,420 pounds and the certificate of registration for defendant's truck permitted 25,400 pounds which indicated an overload of 2,020 pounds.

¶5The statute provides that "No arrest shall be made in cases where weight limitations provided in this section are not exceeded by more than 5 per centum." Allowing five per cent of the weight limitation of 25,400, as provided by the statute, an overload of 750 pounds still existed.

¶6The defendant argued that the scales were or might have been inaccurate at the time the weighing took place. The testimony does not indicate that the scales were inaccurate.

¶7The defendant argues that the five per cent allowance made by the statute was to allow an owner or operator of a truck a grace poundage, and that the owner or operator was to be allowed an additional amount of poundage over and in addition to the five per cent to provide for inaccuracy of scales or for any other purpose. As heretofore stated, the proof was not sufficient to indicate inaccuracy in the scales used, but even if it did, it is the opinion of this court that *82 the five per cent provision in the statute is to take care of such inaccuracies. If the Legislature meant to provide that the five per cent provision in the statute was to only grant a grace poundage, it is the opinion of this court that the statute would so state.

¶8This court cannot consider whether the defendant was a flagrant or minor violator. The only question to be determined is: — Did the defendant violate the statute?

¶9The defendant is found guilty of violating R.S. 39:3-84.3. A fine of $200 is imposed, together with the costs in the Municipal Court and the costs of this proceeding.

/16/njsuper/80 · .json · Public domain