Cherr v. Rubenstein
Decision Date | 22 October 1952 |
Docket Number | No. A--660,A--660 |
Citation | 91 A.2d 627,22 N.J.Super. 212 |
Parties | CHERR et al. v. RUBENSTEIN. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Robert E. Pollan, Passaic, for appellant (Carl F. Nitto, Passaic, attorney; Aaron Z. Schomer, Gurtman & Schomer, Passaic, of counsel; Joseph P. Piscopo, Passaic, on the brief).
Joseph B. Stadtmauer, Passaic, for respondents.
Before Judges JAYNE, PROCTOR and SCHETTINO.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
JAYNE, S.J.A.D.
It must be immediately realized that where no stenographic record of the evidence has been taken in the district court, our appellate survey of the case is confined to the statement of the proceedings settled by the trial judge pursuant to Rule 1:2--23; 4:2--6. See, also, Rule 7:13--3. Bancroft Realty Co. v. Alencewicz, 7 N.J.Super. 105, 72 A.2d 360 (App.Div.1950); Bayuk v. Feldman, 11 N.J.Super. 317, 78 A.2d 282 (App.Div.1951), certification denied, 6 N.J. 615, 80 A.2d 147 (1951); State v. Goldberg, 12 N.J.Super. 293, 79 A.2d 702 (App.Div.1951); Hopper's, Inc., v. Red Bank Airport, Inc., 15 N.J.Super. 349, 83 A.2d 457 (App.Div.1951); Goldman v. Shapiro, 16 N.J.Super. 324, 84 A.2d 628 (App.Div.1951).
Our Supreme Court has stated that: 'Facts and inferences drawn from facts which are outside the record have no place in the argument of an appeal.' Lang v. Morgan's Home Equipment Corp., 6 N.J. 333, 340, 78 A.2d 705, 709 (1951).
With the scope of our review of the present case thus necessarily circumscribed, we are unable to discover in the court's statement of the proceedings filed in lieu of transcript any foundation to which some of the points argued by the defendant-appellant in his brief can be properly addressed.
This action was prosecuted in the Passaic County District Court by the plaintiffs as landlords of the premises designated as No. 104 Park Place, Passaic, to recover from the defendant as the alleged tenant of an apartment in the building the rent claimed to be unpaid for the months of December 1951 and January, February and March 1952. In conformity with the verdict of the jury, the judgment under review was entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the sum of $140.
Under point I counsel for the defendant represents to us that in his opening address to the jury he announced that proof would be introduced 'as to refusal of his wife (the daughter of the plaintiffs) to let him live with her, so that under the law (1) he was absolved from all liability for the payment of rent; and (2) she alone was liable for the payment of rent, by reason of the joint nature of the obligation of husband and wife to pay rent, if she continued to live in the premises after she had locked her husband out.'
No mention of this episode or of any adverse and obstructive ruling by the trial judge appears in the record. The statement of the trial judge reveals that the defendant testified concerning a visit of his father-in-law to the former's office on December 7, 1951, at which his father-in-law, one of the plaintiffs, informed him that he no longer desired the defendant to occupy the apartment as a tenant. The occurrence of that conversation constituted the main controversial issue submitted to the jury for determination. We are cognizant of the stipulation of the defendant that he was the tenant.
In a similar setting is the defendant's ineffectual criticism of the action of the trial judge in sustaining an objection to a question propounded to the defendant's witness David Weiner. Here is our only authentic information concerning it:
(Emphasis ours.)
It is elementary that a relevant statement or admission against interest made by a party to the action constitutes an affirmative matter of substantive proof by the opposite party, and it need not, as in the case of mere witnesses other than parties to the action, be shown to have been made by the one party in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sullivan
...hesitated to deny such relief to the defendant. * * *' Cf. Wilson v. Savino, 10 N.J. 11, 89 A.2d 399 (1952); Cherr v. Rubenstein, 22 N.J.Super. 212, 91 A.2d 627 (App.Div.1952). The judgment of conviction is affirmed on Counts 2, 4 and 6 of the perjury indictment and reversed as to Counts 1,......
-
Liberatori v. Yellow Cab Co. of Philadelphia
...affects the substantial rights of a party to a suit, the judgment may be reversed and a new trial granted. Cherr v. Rubenstein, 22 N.J.Super. 212, 91 A.2d 627 (App.Div.1952). But here the court's limitation of the defendants' scope of cross-examination was proper and did not adversely affec......
-
Corbett v. Van Kirk, A--710
...& A.1947); Link v. Eastern Aircraft, etc., General Motors Corp., 136 N.J.L. 540, 57 A.2d 8 (E. & A.1948); Cherr v. Rubenstein, 22 N.J.Super. 212, 216, 91 A.2d 627 (App.Div.1952). It has been previously stated that the direction in which the motor truck was facing at the time the plaintiff w......
-
State v. K.S.
...government counsel" grounds were presented on a record that is, to quote Judge Jayne, "as bald as a cannon ball." Cherr v. Rubenstein, 22 N.J. Super. 212, 216 (App. Div. 1952). That circumstance leads us to conclude, after much reflection, that we improvidently granted leave to appeal. Appe......