In re Jibb
| Decision Date | 26 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 211.,211. |
| Citation | 123 N.J.Eq. 251,197 A. 12 |
| Parties | In re JIBB et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Proceeding in the matter of Robert B Jibb and George E. Stupalsky, chargec with contempt. From an order, 191 A. 552 121 N.J.Eq. 531, adjudging respondenl Stupalsky guilty of contempt, respondenl Stupalsky appeals.
Order set aside.
Burnett & Trelease and Norbury C. Murray, all of Newark, for appellant. Milton M. Unger, of Newark, for prosecutor.
George E. Stupalsky appeals from a determination in the Court of Chancery that he was guilty of contempt of that court, The proceedings for contempt were instituted October 23, 1936, and the finding was that the contempt consisted of a false affidavit taken September 8, 1934, to be used in a chancery proceeding then pending.
The false affidavit was not made in the presence of the court and was an offense against organized society and like other criminal offenses raised an issue between the public and the accused. It was, therefore, a criminal contempt, Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co., 83 N.J.Eq. 300, 90 A. 1042, L.R.A.1917B, 113, Ann.Cas.1916B, 955; Hendricks v. Earl Radio Corp., 113 N.J.Eq. 93, 166 A. 211, The perjury was committed when the affidavit was sworn to and, as before indicated, the perjury was not committed in the presence of the court.
There was a right of appeal pursuant to Pamphlet Laws 1909, p. 270, 1 Comp, St.1910, p. 452, § 113a. Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co., supra. The statute was subsequent to the decision of this court in Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 72 N.J.Eq. 377, 65 A. 982.
Prosecutions for the offense of perjury are barred in this state unless the indictment is found within two years from the time the offense was committed. 2 Comp.St.1910, p. 1870, § 152. By analogy, the Court of Chancery should not have adjudged the appellant in contempt when no steps were taken to prosecute him for the wrong done within two years aftei the act was committed. The rule laid down in Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 34 S.Ct. 693, 696, 58 L.Ed. 1115 is applicable: "The power to punish for contempt must have some limit in time, and in defining that limit we should have regard to what has been the policy of the law from the foundation of the government." By analogy in this state, if not by enactment, the limit is two years.
The order adjudging the appellant in contempt will be set aside.
For reversal: The CHIEF...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gussman
...Megill, 114 N.J.Eq. 604, 169 A. 501 (Ch.1933), a resolution of a municipal governing body criticizing the court; cf. In re Jibb, 123 N.J.Eq. 251, 197 A. 12 (E. & A.1938), taking a false affidavit, 'to be used' in Chancery, held not in the court's This is a substantial body of authority, and......
-
In Re Caruba.
...In re Gottman, 2 Cir., 1941, 118 F.2d 425; and a few other cases from other jurisdictions on the subject of recantation; and In re Jibb, 123 N.J.Eq. 251, 197 A. 12; Backer v. A. B. & B. Realty Co., supra; Sachs v. High Clothing Co., supra; In re Ries, 101 N.J.Eq. 315, 138 A. 586; Ivens v. E......
-
Department of Health v. Roselle
...not a part thereof, but, like other criminal offenses, raise an issue between the public and the accused.' See also In re Jibb, 123 N.J.Eq. 251, 252, 197 A. 12 (E. & A.1938); State v. Zarafu, 35 N.J.Super. 177, 182, 113 A.2d 696 (App.Div.1955); State v. Janiec, 25 N.J.Super. 197, 200, 95 A.......
-
State ex rel. Robinson v. Hartenbach
...444 (1935); Gordon v. Com., 141 Ky. 461, 133 S.W. 206 (1911); Com. v. Gallarelli, 372 Mass. 573, 362 N.E.2d 923 (1977); In re Jibb, 123 N.J. Eq. 251, 197 A.12 (1938); Higginbotham v. Com., 206 Va. 291, 142 S.E.2d 746 (1965); State v. Phipps, 174 Wash. 443, 24 P.2d 1073 (1933). The annotatio......