75 A. 776 (N.J. 1910), State v. Wilson
|Citation:||75 A. 776, 79 N.J.L. 241|
|Opinion Judge:||GARRISON, J.|
|Party Name:||THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES W. WILSON|
|Attorney:||For the plaintiff in error, Frank E. Bradner. For the defendant in error, Wilbur A. Mott, prosecutor of the pleas.|
|Judge Panel:||Before GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices GARRISON and VOORHEES.|
|Case Date:||March 04, 1910|
|Court:||Supreme Court of New Jersey|
Argued November 3, 1909.
On error to the Essex Sessions.
The state's case, as a jury might find it from the testimony, was that a married couple visited Dr. Wilson, the plaintiff in error, to ascertain if the wife was pregnant; and, being told by him that she was, the wife wanted him to open up her womb so that she might not become a mother; that Dr. Wilson sent the woman to one Radford to do the work for her; that the woman went to Radford at an address given by Dr. Wilson and that Radford on three occasions used instruments on her womb; that Radford had a conversation with Wilson over the 'phone about the matter; that Radford directed the woman to go back to Dr. Wilson for after treatment, and that after Radford had operated, he and Wilson met by appointment in a cafe to discuss the case. The woman was in an early stage of pregnancy, i.e., the child was not quick. There was a severance and Wilson, being tried separately, verdict and judgment went against him.
[79 N.J.L. 242]
The only question presented by this writ of error that calls for extended discussion is that raised by the motion to direct a verdict on the first count of the indictment, which charged the defendant, together with one Stacy R. Radford, with the unlawful use of instruments with intent to cause a miscarriage of a pregnant woman. The grounds of this motion were -- first, that if the defendant had aided and abetted Radford it should have been so charged in the indictment; and second, that if the indictment be held good the defendant cannot upon proof of aiding and abetting be convicted as principal, which is the charge of the indictment.
Neither of these points is well taken. The statute does not make aiding and abetting substantive offences, hence the indictment should not charge them as such. As to the second ground the defendant, if guilty under the testimony, could be convicted as principal. The present statute which was passed in 1872 (p. 45) and is now the one hundred and nineteenth section of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP