Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

49 Vroom.

State v. Conklin. State v. Fletcher.

THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM CONK

LIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Submitted November 16, 1909-Decided January 7, 1910.

On error to the Supreme Court.

For the plaintiff in error, Thomas P. Fay.

For the defendant in error, John S. Applegate, Jr.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, with costs, there being no error disclosed in the record or proceedings.

For affirmance-- THE CHANCELLOR, GARRISON, SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORIIEES, MINTURN, BoGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DILL, CONGDON, JJ. 14.

For reversal--None.

THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, V. GEORGE

FLETCHER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued November 17, 1909—Decided January 7. 1910.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 48 Vroom 346.

For the plaintiff in error, John J. Crandall.

For the defendant in error, Clarence L. Goldenberg, prosecutor of the pleas.

[blocks in formation]

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of an attempt to procure the miscarriage of a woman pregnant with child, contrary to Pamph. L. 1898, p. 827, $ 119. The grounds of attack upon this conviction that are dealt with in the opinion of the Supreme Court are not seriously relied upon in the argument before this court, and we therefore have not considered them.

The principal contention here is that the case is devoid of evidence to show the pregnancy of the woman in question. An examination of the testimony returned with the bill of exceptions does, however, disclose evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer that the woman in question was pregnant with child.

We do not mean to concede that the plaintiff in error was entitled to raise the question referred to in this court, for the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial was not returned pursuant to Pamph. L. 1898, p. 915, § 136. On the contrary, the case was brought up on bills of exceptions taken and sealed under section 135, and since that section declares that the bill of exceptions shall contain only so much of the evidence as may be necessary to present the questions of law upon which the exceptions were taken, it is not at all to be inferred that a bill of exceptions includes all of the evidence that was produced at the trial.

The other points raised for plaintiff in error in this court relate to certain rulings upon evidence in the trial court. We find no error therein, and deem it unnecessary to discuss the matters referred to.

The judgment under review should be affirmed.

For affirmance-THE CHANCELLOR, GARRISON, REED, PARKER, BERGEN, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DILL, CONGDON, JJ.

For reversal-None.

[blocks in formation]

THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, V. GEORGE VEZ,

PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

Argued November 16, 1909-Decided November 16, 1909.

On error to the Middlesex Oyer and Terminer.

For the plaintiff in error, George S. Silzer and John A. Coan.

For the state, Theodore B. Booraem, prosecutor of the pleas.

PER CURIAM.

No merit being found in any of the grounds urged for reversal, the judgment under review herein should be affirmed.

For affirmanceTHE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, GARRISON, SWAYZE, REED, TRENCHARD, PARKER, VOORHEES, MINTURN, BOGERT, VREDENBURGH, VROOM, GRAY, DILL, CONGDON, JJ. 15.

[merged small][ocr errors]

INDEX.

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.12. Section 206 of the District

Court act confines the Supreme
While the general rule is that the Court on appeal to the consid-

payment of a less sum in satis- eration of questions of law and
faction of a larger one is no sat- the determination of the legality
isfaction, still, where the debtor of the admission or rejection of
in addition to such payment does, evidence. Questions of fact de-
at the request of his creditor, termined by the District Court
some substantial thing detrimen- judge or by the verdict of a jury
tal to his interests that he was are final and conclusive between
not bound to do. upon the mu- the parties. Paonessa v. Ruh,
tual understanding that it was

233
an additional consideration for
the creditor's promise to accept||3. The transmission to the Supreme
the less for the larger sum, legal Court from the District Court of
effect may be given to such com- the stenographer's notes as a
pact of the parties if the debtor state of the case, in compliance
has duly performed his part with the act of 1905 (Pamph.
thereof to his detriment. The L., p. 259), confers upon this
abandonment by the debtor at court no authority to weigh the
the request of the creditor of ap- evidence. The practice permit-
pellate proceedings to reverse the ted under this statute of return-
judgment that constituted the ing the whole case should be
debt is such an additional con- confined to cases such as those
sideration. Roberts v. Banse, 57. a rising on motions to nonsuit or

to direct a verdict or where it is
necessary to determine whether

there is any evidence, or whether
ACTION,

there is an entire absence of evi-
Scc DEATH.

dence as the case may be, to
LANDLORD AND TENANT, 5. justify the trial court in its rul-
MORTGAGES, 1.

ings.

Ib.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 3.
WILLS, 2.

See DISORDERLY PERSONS.

ANIMALS.

APPEARANCE.

See HIGIIWAYS, 2.

See JUSTICES' COURTS.

ARCHITECTS.
APPEAL.

See CONTRACTS, 7. 8.
1. Facts found by the District

Court will be presumed to rest
on competent proof when noth-

ARREST.
ing appears

to the contrary.
Home Coupon Erchange Co. v. The revision of the Practice act
Goldfarb,

146

(Pamph. L. 1903. p. 537. $ 56)

« PředchozíPokračovat »