Carlotz v. Gavin
Decision Date | 10 May 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 8.,8. |
Citation | 42 A.2d 461,133 N.J.L. 61 |
Parties | CARLOTZ v. GAVIN et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by John Carlotz, Jr., an infant, by his next friend, John Carlotz, Sr., and John Carlotz, Sr., individually, against Richard Gavin, trading as Orange Crush Bottling Works, and another, for injuries sustained by infant plaintiff when struck by named defendant's truck operated by codefendant. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 132 N.J.L. 52, 38 A.2d 441, affirming a judgment discharging a rule to show cause why a verdict for plaintiff should not be set aside and a new trial granted, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Lewis S. Beers, of Philipsburg, for appellants.
Francis L. Thompson, of Philipsburg, and Peter Friedman, of Newton, for respondents.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Perskie, whose opinion is reported in 132 N.J.L. 52, 38 A.2d 441.
It was urged before us that the learned trial judge unduly limited counsel in the examination of a witness under fourteen years of age. The majority of the court does not think so.
The following is the rule of law applicable: ‘The adjudication as to capacity and responsibility’ (of an infant under fourteen years of age to testify) State v. Labriola, 75 N.J.L. 483, 485, 67 A. 386, 387.
The court granted cross-examining counsel the right to inquire as to the qualifications of the infant to testify, although the Judge expressed himself as satisfied. In the exercise of this right counsel asked the following question: ‘Who told you that you would not go to Heaven if you did not tell the truth?’ This question was properly overruled because it was obviously objectionable. There can be no profit in probing into the source of theological beliefs. The matter was not further pursued. The exclusion of an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State in Interest of R. R.
...State v. Gambutti, supra, 36 N.J.Super. at 223, 115 A.2d 136; Hare, supra, 37 N.J.Super. at 565, 117 A.2d 637; Carlotz v. Gavin, 133 N.J.L. 61, 61-62, 42 A.2d 461 (E. & A.1945). However, in determining the propriety of the trial judge's determination, an appellate court need not limit its v......
-
State v. Grillo
...839, 71 S.Ct. 25, 95 L.Ed. 615 (1950). Cf. Carlotz v. Gavin, 132 N.J.L. 52, 53--54, 38 A.2d 441 (Sup.Ct. 1944), affirmed 133 N.J.L. 61, 42 A.2d 461 (E. & A.1945). But the mere fact that the juror Could have been peremptorily challenged is not, under these circumstances, sufficient ground fo......
-
Morrone v. Morrone
...The capacity and responsibility of an infant under 14 to testify is to be determined by the trial court, Carlotz v. Gavin, 133 N.J.L. 61, 42 A.2d 461 (E. & A.1945), affirming 132 N.J.L. 52, 38 A.2d 441 (Sup.Ct.1944); when the child is over 14, it is presumed to be competent to be sworn and ......
-
Martin v. State, 31122
...the court has a discretion as to whether it shall find for the plaintiff or for the defendant. In this connection see Carlotz v. Gavin (1945) 133 N.J.L. 61, 42 A.2d 461, wherein the court said: 'The adjudication as to capacity and responsibility * * * is to be made by the trial court. Its j......