Epps v. Bowen

• Decision Date: 25 March 1937
• Docket Number: No. 242.,242.
• Parties: EPPS v. BOWEN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

191 A. 110

EPPS

v. BOWEN.

No. 242.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 25, 1937.

Action by Ransom A. Epps against James Bowen. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant filed an application for a writ of certiorari.

Writ denied.

Argued January term, 1937, before PARKER, LLOYD, and DONGES, JJ.

William F. Hanlon, of New York City, for prosecutor. Sol Hoberman, of Jersey City, for respondent.

PARKER, Justice.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari to a judgment entered for plaintiff in the Second district court of Jersey City. The grounds of the application seem directed to irregularities of procedure which, as claimed, deprive the judgment of legal efficacy.

Counsel for prosecutor submit a chronological statement apparently reciting every step in the cause, much of which is irrelevant and immaterial. The general facts so far as relevant are that the action was begun in the Second district court, and the judge of that court, for reasons satisfactory to himself and which we naturally assume to have been entirely proper, preferred that it should be tried" by some other judge, whom he had the power to call in under section 19 of the District Court Act. 2 Comp.St.1910, p. 1959, § 19. His first act in that respect was to enlist the judge of the Second judicial district court of Hudson county, which court sits customarily at Kearny. That judge directed a reference, presumably under P.L.1912, p. 196 (Comp.St. Supp.1924, § 61—67a), and judgment was entered on the referee's report in the Second district court of Jersey City, as part of the record in that court. However, that judgment was set aside and the case was tried with a jury. This trial took place in Kearny, under the direction of the judge of the Kearny court, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. But quite plainly there was no transfer of the record to the Kearny court, and no judgment was entered in that court. At this stage there were some proceedings by way of appeal, but they came to nothing because as yet there was no judgment of record. However, execution was issued, and was challenged (before the judge of the Jersey City court, holding the record) because of lack of a judgment. He examined the record, and, finding there was no judgment, directed one to be entered: necessarily based on the verdict. This was done, apparently nunc pro tunc, and the execution was then upheld by the court.

Only two matters seem to require any comment at this time. The first is the trial at Kearny instead of at Jersey City. As to this, we consider that the trial judge was qualified to preside under the statute first cited, and that as his jurisdiction was coextensive with the county, a trial elsewhere in that county than at the courtroom of the Jersey City court, and...