Roop v. State
| Decision Date | 20 February 1896 |
| Citation | 58 N.J.L. 487,34 A. 885 |
| Parties | ROOP v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to court of general sessions, Camden county; Vroom, McDowell, and Gaunt, Judges.
George Roop was indicted for keeping a disorderly house and for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. From a judgment of guilty, defendant brings error. Reversed.
Argued November term, 1895, before the
CHIEF JUSTICE and LUDLOW and MAGIE, JJ.
Mr. De Unger, for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Jenkins, for the State.
The record brought us by this writ of error exhibits two indictments presented by the grand jury of Camden against plaintiff in error (one charging him with keeping a disorderly house, and the other charging him with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors); his plea of not guilty to each indictment; a trial of both issues thus joined, with a verdict in favor of the state, and two separate judgments thereon. By the bill of exceptions it appears that the prosecutor and plaintiff in error agreed that both issues should be tried together by one jury. Notwithstanding such an agreement, the record should have been made up upon each indictment, as if each had been separately tried. But this error is not within any of the assignments of error, and need not be considered. The judgment rendered upon the verdict on the issue joined on the charge of keeping a disorderly house was that "George Roop pay a fine of five hundred dollars, or be confined in the state prison at Trentou, N. J., at hard labor, for one year." The record further shows that the court allowed the prisoner the period of 10 days in which to pay said fine. Such a judgment is manifestly erroneous. By section 192 of the crimes act (Revision, p. 201) the court was empowered, upon such a conviction, to inflict at its discretion a punishment either by imprisonment at hard labor, not exceeding two years, or by a fine not exceeding $500, or by both imprisonment and fine. It became the duty of the court, therefore, to determine which of these punishments should be imposed. It did not comport with its duty to leave such determination to the convicted criminal. Such a sentence as was pronounced is indeterminate and uncertain, and would not become certain until the lapse of 10 days, and then only by a payment or a default of payment which would form no part of the record. Cases in which such sentences are coudemned will be found collected in 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 1077, and notes, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Roth
...had no jurisdiction to revise a sentence but only to declare one manifestly illegal, persisted and was followed in Roop v. State, 58 N.J.L. 487, 34 A. 885 (Sup.Ct.1895). During this period it was obviously useless to appeal the length of a sentence, hence no such appeals are noted.It was no......
-
State v. Culver
...illegally sentenced, citing State v. Gray, 37 N.J.L. 368 (Sup.Ct.1875), State v. Addy, 43 N.J.L. 113 (Sup.Ct.1881), Roop v. State, 58 N.J.L. 487, 34 A. 885 (Sup.Ct. 1896). He says that up until 1952 we have had statutes providing for the correction of illegal and improper sentences, nullify......
-
State v. Johnson
...of the day, persisted and was 'complacently' followed in State v. Addy, 43 N.J.L. 113 (Sup.Ct.1881), and Roop v. State, 58 N.J.L. 487, 34 A. 885 (Sup.Ct.1895). See State v. Culver, 23 N.J. 495, 507, 129 A.2d 715 (1957). Cf. Bindernagle v. State, 61 N.J.L. 259, 267, 269, 38 A. 973; 39 A. 360......
-
Wagner v. United States
...371, 6 N. W. 871; Turner v. Smith, 90 Mich. 309, 51 N. W. 282; Miller v. City of Camden, 63 N. J. Law, 500, 43 A. 1069; Roop v. State, 59 N. J. Law, 487, 34 A. 885; State v. Perkins, 82 N. C. 682; In re Deaton, 105 N. C. 59, 11 S. E. If the construction given the sentence by the court below......