Rothman v. State
| Decision Date | 12 November 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 204.,204. |
| Citation | 130 A. 888 |
| Parties | ROTHMAN v. STATE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllahus hy the Court.)
(2) that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; nor (3) deprive any one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Morris Rothman was convicted of being a disorderly person pursuant to the Act Concerning Disorderly Persons, § 6, 2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1928, and he brings certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued May term, 1925, before TRENCHARD, KATZENBAOH, and LLOYD, JJ.
Harry Lane and Edward M. Salley, both of Jersey City, for prosecutor.
Thomas J. Brogan and Charles Herschenstein, both of Jersey City, for respondents.
On a complaint, the validity of which is not questioned the prosecutor of this writ was convicted by the judge of the First criminal court of Jersey City of being a common thief and pickpocket, and to have been frequenting and attending a railroad depot, a place of public resort, for the unlawful purpose of stealing, an offense denounced by section 6 of the Act Concerning Disorderly Persons (C. S. p. 1928), and was adjudged to be a disorderly person pursuant to that section of that act. The defendant below brings up for review such conviction, and the sentence imposed thereon, and now argues that "there was not sufficient evidence on which to base the conviction."
We think that there was. The record of conviction sets forth evidence showing (1) the defendant's reputation as a common thief and pickpocket and the repetition of particular acts and conduct from which (to use the language of Justice Van Syckel in Griffin v. Mills, 39 N. J. Law, 589) "the general and notorious character" of the defendant as a common thief and pickpocket was to be inferred; and also evidence tending to show (2) that he was frequenting and attending a railroad depot, a place of public resort, for the unlawful purpose of stealing. Such evidence justified the conviction. 3 Wig. E
The next point is that "the conviction of the prosecutor was based upon matters outside of the record." We see no merit in this point. The prosecutor's argument is that an examination of the transcript of evidence, taken at the trial and returned with the state of the case, will disclose that the conviction is erroneous. To this it is a sufficient answer to say that such evidence, returned by the police justice as part of his transcript, was not embraced in the conviction, and was not returned pursuant to any rule of this court, and is no part of the record, and will not be considered by the court. Board of Health v. Rosenthal, 67 N. J. Law, 216, 50 A. 439; Lloyd v. Richman, 57 N. J Law, 385, 30 A. 432; Preusser v. Cass, 54 N. J. Law, 532, 24 A. 480.
Lastly, it is contended that section 6 of the Disorderly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levine v. State
...and are therefore supported by the evidence. Manziano v. Public Service Gas Company, 92 N. J. Law, 322, 327, 105 A. 484; Rothman v. State, 102 N. J. Law, 43, 130 A. 888. None of the remaining grounds urged by appellants requires discussion. They are entirely without The judgment in each cas......
-
Bor. Of Hasbrouck Heights v. O'brien. Bor. Of Hasbrouck Heights
...for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 79 N.J.L. 357, 75 A. 547; Elizabeth v. Central R. Co., 66 N.J.L. 568, 49 A. 682; Rothman v. State, 102 N.J.L. 43, 130 A. 888; State v. De Maio, 69 N.J.L. 590, 55 A. 644, aff. 70 N.J.L. 220, 58 A. 173. At the trial before the Recorder, as indicated by t......
-
Wasserman v. State
...by the Supreme Court. The affirmance rested upon a previous case, which the court said was substantially similar, viz. Rothman v. State (N. J. Sup.) 130 A. 888. In the opinion in that case the statute (P. L. 1914, p. 419) was not referred to, and for that reason we think an affirmance by th......
-
Levine v. State, s. 207, 208.
...therefore, that there is ample testimony to sustain their convictions as disorderly persons under the complaint. Rothman v. State, 102 N. J. Law, 43, 130 A. 888. It is objected that the records of conviction could not be admitted in evidence. We think they were properly admitted to show the......