enacting clause in New Jersey

1907The clause providing that the act shall in nowise apply to fields or woods inhabited by deer was not placed in the enacting clause by which the offence was described and forbidden, so as to bring the case within the rule applied in Hoffman v. Peters, 22 Vroom 244 , but stands in an entirely separate proviso.

1895The clause of the ordinance permitting druggists to sell without license was not placed in the enacting clause by which the offence was described and forbidden, so as to bring the case within the rule applied in Hoffman v. Peters, 22 Vroom 244 , but stands in an entirely separate proviso.

1942Minis v. United States, 15 Peters 423, 445 ; 10 L.

1942Minis v. United States, 15 Peters 423, 445 ; 10 L.

1828In the case of Shaw v. Hearsey, 5 Mass. 521 , the Supreme f'ev.'it of Massachusetts, held ?b;'t the M-.tnto of that «3*e. did no* extend to conveyances to husband and wife, a statute substantially like ours, with this difference indeed, that the words “ conveyances and devises to two or more persons,” are there actually contained in the enacting clause, as the counsel of the defendant proposed to read them in our statute for greater elucidation.

1828In the case of Shaw v. Hearsey, 5 Mass. 521 , the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, held that the statute of that state, did not extend to conveyances to husband and wife, a statute substantially like ours, with this difference indeed, that the words “ conveyances and devises to two or more persons,” are there actually contained in the enacting clause, as the counsel of the defendant proposed to read them in our statute for greater elucidation.

1975State v. Terry, 73 N.J.L. 554 ; State v. Reilly, 89 Id. 627, 628 ; Wheatman v. Andrews, 85 Id. 107, 112, where other cases are collected. [at 5480; explanatory brackets supplied] See No-Worry Chemical Co. v. Du-All Chemical Co., 16 N.J.

1958The leading case now is State v. Reilly, 88 N.J.L. 104 ( Sup. Ct. 1915), affirmed 89 N.J.L. 627 ( E. & A. 1916), where the court cited with approval McGear et al. v. Woodruff, 33 N.J.L. 213 ( Sup. Ct. 1868), and quoted as follows from that case: "In an action founded on a penal statute the subject of any exception in the enacting or prohibitory clause of the act must, in the declaration, be excluded by averment; but of any proviso or qualification in a separate substantive clause, the declaration need not take notice.

1958Plainfield v. Watson, 57 N.J.L. 525 ( Sup. Ct. 1895); State v. Lee, 100 N.J.L. 201 ( Sup. Ct. 1924).

1958The leading case now is State v. Reilly, 88 N.J.L. 104 ( Sup. Ct. 1915), affirmed 89 N.J.L. 627 ( E. & A. 1916), where the court cited with approval McGear et al. v. Woodruff, 33 N.J.L. 213 ( Sup. Ct. 1868), and quoted as follows from that case: "In an action founded on a penal statute the subject of any exception in the enacting or prohibitory clause of the act must, in the declaration, be excluded by averment; but of any proviso or qualification in a separate substantive clause, the declaration need not take notice.

1958Plainfield v. Watson, 57 N.J.L. 525 ( Sup. Ct. 1895); State v. Lee, 100 N.J.L. 201 ( Sup. Ct. 1924).

1958The leading case now is State v. Reilly, 88 N.J.L. 104 ( Sup. Ct. 1915), affirmed 89 N.J.L. 627 ( E. & A. 1916), where the court cited with approval McGear et al. v. Woodruff, 33 N.J.L. 213 ( Sup. Ct. 1868), and quoted as follows from that case: "In an action founded on a penal statute the subject of any exception in the enacting or prohibitory clause of the act must, in the declaration, be excluded by averment; but of any proviso or qualification in a separate substantive clause, the declaration need not take notice.

1958If the exception appear in the latter, it is an essential part of the description of the thing prohibited, and must be negatived. * * *" The court quoted with approval the following language from State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ( Sup. Ct. Err. ): "* * * Now, the claim is that, by the reference in the first section, the subsequent exceptions are incorporated into the first section, and become a part of it as effectually as if they were recited verbatim, and that they must therefore be negatived, according to the well-settled rule of declaring that an exception, contained in the enacting clause of

1958Jur., Indictments and Informations, sections 106 and 107, pp. 666-668, the general rule is reiterated that, if an exception or proviso appears in the enacting clause of a statute, it must be averred in the indictment or information founded upon the statute by means of language negativing the exception and stating that the accused is not within the exception, but that exceptions or provisos contained in distinct clauses of the statute need not be negatived in such indictment, but the facts regarding the exception are properly a matter of defense to be shown by the accused, citing with approval

1934It is a limitation of, or exception to, the authority conferred.” Its office is “to limit and restrict the operation of the enacting clause.” Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380 ; 6 L.

1934It is a limitation of, or exception to, the authority conferred.” Its office is “to limit and restrict the operation of the enacting clause.” Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380 ; 6 L.

1934Austin v. United States, 155 U. S. 417 ; 15 Sup. Ct.. 167; 39 L.

1934Austin v. United States, 155 U. S. 417 ; 15 Sup. Ct.. 167; 39 L.

1934“The enacting clause is the principal part of the statute, and is presumed to have embodied the main object of the act * * *.” People v. Andrus, 299 Ill. 50 ; 132 N. E.

1934“The enacting clause is the principal part of the statute, and is presumed to have embodied the main object of the act * * *.” People v. Andrus, 299 Ill. 50 ; 132 N. E.

1892United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141 .