Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

actually acquired by the lands and in no case had any property been assessed beyond the amount of benefit actually derived from the paving. This report was referred back to the commissioners twice for revision, and should not now be disturbed. The report was confirmed December 18th, 1908, after notice to appear and make objection had been given, according to law. This finding should not be now disturbed upon the conflicting evidence, or where the same is not clear and convincing. Kirtiand v. Parker, 47 Vroom 217.

The merits of the case showing no reasons to disturb the assessment, the writ should be dismissed because embracing two objects not necessarily connected, and for laches.

CHARLES PAONESSA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR. v. CHARLES F. RUH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted March 19, 1909-Decided June 7, 1909.

1. Section 206 of the District Court act confines the Supreme Court on appeal to the consideration of questions of law and the determination of the legality of the admission or, rejection of evidence. Questions of fact determined by the District Court judge or by the verdict of a jury are final and conclusive between the parties. 2. The transmission to the Supreme Court from the District Court of the stenographer's notes as a state of the case, in compliance with the act of 1905 (Pamph. L., p. 259), confers upon this court no authority to weigh the evidence. The practice permitted under this statute of returning the whole case should be confined to cases such as those arising on motions to nonsuit or to direct a verdict, or where it is necessary to determine whether there is any evidence, or whether there is an entire absence of evidence as the case may be, to justify the trial court in its rulings.

On appeal from the First District Court of Jersey City.

Before Justices GARRISON, BERGEN and VOORHEES.

Paonessa v. Ruh.

For the defendant in error, Randolph Perkins.

For the plaintiff in error, Isaac F. Goldenhorn.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

78 N. J. L.

VOORHEES, J. This is an appeal from the First District Court of Jersey City, in which judgment was rendered for the plaintiff. Suit was brought to recover $250 which the defendant took as a bonus to extend a mortgage on the plaintiff's property which was never extended. There is no agreed state of the case. The stenographer's notes have been sent up in lieu thereof under the statute of 1905.

Among the reasons filed are that the proofs do not support the state of demand and there was a variance between the demand and the proofs. A motion to nonsuit was made, founded on these objections. Another reason urged was that there was no evidence before the court which would sustain the judgment. It was shown that the defendant, being the holder of a mortgage about to expire, was asked to extend it for three years or obtain somebody who would take a mortgage on the property, to fall due three years hence. He asked and obtained $250 to accomplish it. A search of title was furnished by the plaintiff. The plaintiff and his wife executed a new mortgage, left it with the defendant to put on record, having told the defendant that he was about to sell the property, which was one of the reasons why he wanted the extension. Several days after he had left the mortgage with the defendant, who did not demur to the arrangement, but afterwards promised to send the papers to the title company, who would record them, the plaintiff sold the place. The defendant did not place the mortgage on record. The new loan was not procured, and the defendant after the property had been sold called in his mortgage. He had on the 8th of April stated in writing that the plaintiff had paid his fees, except the search fees and the new title policy, which were to be paid to Mr. Zabriskie.

The state of demand sets out: "The plaintiff demands of

[blocks in formation]

the defendant for that the defendant took from the plaintiff the sum of $250 as a bonus to extend a mortgage on the property of the plaintiff, which said mortgage was never extended, and for this that the plaintiff expended the sum of $30 for a search in anticipation of obtaining such extension."

There was evidence from which the court might find as a matter of fact that the agreement made between the plaintiff and defendant had not been carried out, and that the consideration for which the payment had been made to the defendant had failed. These facts were substantially set forth in the state of demand.

Section 206 of the District Court act confines the Supreme Court on appeal to the consideration of questions of law or the determination of the legality of the admission or rejection of evidence, and section 205 provides that the questions of fact determined by the judge or upon the verdict of a jury shall also be final and conclusive between the parties. The judgment should therefore be affirmed. It may be well to state here that the transmission to this court of the stenographer's notes as a state of the case in compliance with the act of 1905 (Pamph. L., p. 259) confers upon this court no authority to weigh the evidence. The practice permitted under this statute of returning the whole case should be confined to cases such as those arising on motions to nonsuit or to direct a verdict or where it is necessary to determine whether there is any evidence, or whether there is an entire absence of evidence, as the case may be, to justify the trial court in its rulings.

[blocks in formation]

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR. v. CHARLES BIENSTOCK, THOMAS BRODELL AND PETER J. McDONALD. (INDICTMENT No. 139.)

THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PROSECUTOR. v. CHARLES BIENSTOCK, THOMAS BRODELL, PETER J. McDONALD AND JOHN F. KELLY. (INDICTMENT No. 169.)

Argued November 9. 1908-Decided June 22, 1909.

1. A combination to accomplish an object which is not criminal by means which are not criminal may become an indictable conspiracy where the public is injuriously involved, or where the result would be either injury or oppression to individuals. 2. An indictment for conspiracy alleged substantially that since the year 1856 continuously the principal political parties in the United States have been and still are known as the Republican party and the Democratic party; that since said date every president of the United States elected by the electors has. before election, been nominated for said office by one of said two parties; that the Republican party has during all that time maintained a central and national political organization known as the Republican national committee, which exercises general and supreme control of the management of said party throughout the United States and has maintained continuously in New Jersey and in each of the states a state political organization known as the Republican state committee, which exercises supreme control of the management of the Republican party in the state of which it is the state committee, and also continuously maintains in each county of New Jersey and in each county of each of the several other states, a county political organization designated as the Republican county committee, which exercises, subject to the state and national committee supreme control of the management of said Republican party in the county of which it is the Republican county committee; that for many years it has been the right and practice of the Republican national committee, under its rules, in every year in which presidential electors are to be chosen and before they are elected, to issue a call for the holding of a national convention. composed of delegates-at-large and of delegates other than delegates-at-large to be chosen directly or indirectly by the Republican voters of the respective states; that the delegates from the State of New Jersey to the national convention were required by the rules of the Republican state committee of New Jersey to be elected by a convention of delegates chosen by the Republican voters of the counties and the delegates

[blocks in formation]

other than those known as delegates-at-large from New Jersey to the Republican national convention are required by said rules of the state committee to be elected by a convention of delegates chosen by Republican voters in each of the congressional districts of the state, and that delegates to the Republican state convention and to the convention in each of the congressional districts have been during said time required by the rules of the party and of the county committee to be elected by the Republican voters in each of said counties at primary elections held at such times and places in each of the counties as the Republican county committee of each of the counties has designated or may designate; that the county committee in pursuance of the several calls aforementioned, ordered and directed primary elections of the Republican party to be held at a certain time and place throughout the county of Hudson, and appointed the persons who should act at each of said primary elections as election officers to conduct the same; that one such primary was directed and ordered to be held at No. 5 Brunswick street, in the city of Jersey City, for the purpose of receiving the votes of the Republican voters of that ward qualified to vote and offering to vote thereat for delegates to the Republican state convention as aforesaid, and for delegates to the Republican conventions to be held in said congressional district; that the defendants at the time and place aforesaid, designated and appointed by the county committee to conduct said primary at the place aforesaid and for the purpose aforesaid, it became and was their duty as persons actually in charge of and conducting the primary election, to receive the votes of the qualified voters, to give all votes cast their full, due and honest effect, to reject the votes of persons not qualified and to honestly and accurately tally counts, and canvass and declare the full and correct number of votes cast and not to count and declare any votes for any person that were not cast for such person or persons, and to conduct the election fairly and honestly; but that the defendants, unlawfully, willfully, dishonestly, violating their duty to the public in the premises and intending and contriving to cause to be returned to the county committee and accepted by it and by the people of New Jersey as a fact that the persons who were lawfully elected as delegates were not elected as such delegates thereat, and that persons who were not elected for delegates were elected as such delegates, and to defeat, frustrate and nullify the will of a majority of the qualified Republican voters, and to corrupt and pervert the action of the state convention in the election of delegates to the national committee and the action of the congressional district in the election of delegates. and to defraud, cheat and deprive the majority of the qualified Republican voters, did wickedly, &c., combine, &c., to deprive, cheat and defraud, &c., and to pervert, &c., the action of the state convention in the election of delegates to the national convention and the action of the congressional convention in the election of delegates to the national convention; and that in pursuance of the conspiracy did VOL. XLIX.

17

« PředchozíPokračovat »