
    SAMUEL B. GUERIN v. THE BOROUGH OF ASBURY PARK.
    1. The act of March 28th, 1892 (Pamph. L., p. 293), do'es not empower boroughs to license and regulate the business of a grocer.
    2. That act does not confer upon courts for the trial of small causes jurisdiction over complaints for the violation of a borough ordinance which forbids the driving of a grocery wagon without a license.
    On certioy'ari.
    
    Argued at June Term, 1894, before Justices .Dixon, Reed- and Abbett.
    For the prosecutor, Claude V. Guerin.
    
    For the defendant, Hawkins & Durand.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dixon, J.

It is admitted that the proceedings brought Up> by this ce7'tio7'ci7'i must be supported, if at all, by the provisions of “An act respecting licenses in incorporated boroughs,”approved March 28th, 1892 (Panvph. L., p. 293); and, as we have held that those proceedings are to be instituted in thecouit for the trial of small causes, the prosecutor’s right to relief by certiorari, without appeal to the Common Pleas, can be-based only upon a lack of jurisdiction in the trial court. White v. Neptune City, 27 Vroom 222.

We think such a lack of jurisdiction appears.

The complainant charges the prosecutor with being engaged in the grocery business and soliciting business and delivering groceries within the limits of the borough, with a wagon drawn by one horse, without having a license from the borough.

The statute mentioned does not empower boroughs to pass-ordinances for licensing and regulating a business of that character, and only for the violation of ordinances enacted by authority of that statute is the procedure there indicated applicable.

The proceedings should be set aside, with costs.  