Legal Opinion

State v. Kenilworth

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided February 24, 1903PublishedCited by 4 opinions

On certiorari.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

The prosecutor was convicted before the recorder of Atlantic City and fined for “pretending to use and using palmistry,” in violation of section 1 of the “Act concerning disorderly persons.” Pamph. L. 1898, p. 942. The language of the enactment, so far as now pertinent, is, “all persons Who shall use or pretend to use or have skill in physiognomy, palmistry or like crafty science, * * * shall be deemed and adjudged to be disorderly persons.” This provision has been part of our statutory law since June 10th, 1799. Pat. L., p. 410.

One reason…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. City of BirminghamSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  2. State v. NeitzelWashington Supreme Court · 1912
  3. North Jersey Street Railway Co. v. Mayor of Jersey CitySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1906
  4. Paterson & Passaic Gas, &c., Co. v. State Board of AssessorsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1904

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API