Ryan v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1897 |
| Citation | 36 A. 706,60 N.J.L. 33 |
| Parties | RYAN v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to court of quarter sessions, Bergen county; Van Valen, Judge.
Michael Ryan was convicted of crime, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1896, before BEASLEY, C. J., and VAN SYCKEL, LIPPINCOTT, and GARRISON, JJ.
A. D. Campbell and E. Koester, for plaintiff in error.
Peter W. Stagg, for the State.
The bills of exception show that the testimony with respect to "green goods" as practiced in various places by others than the defendant was permitted a most latitudinous range. It is, however, difficult to believe that these irrelevant and inconsequential narrations could have harmed the defendant, against whom the legitimate proofs established a case upon which the judgment could safely rest.
The court is not, however, required to review in detail this reprehensible testimony, for the reason that the bills of exception show that the objections were made to "the questions and answers"; i. e. to answers that were responsive to illegal questions. The necessary inference from the judicial certificate is that the defendant did not object to that which was illegal until it had been answered. This course has fallen under repeated condemnation, for the reason that it enables a defendant to elect to try his case upon illegal testimony if it be favorable to him; otherwise, to use it to overthrow an adverse judgment. Fath v. Thompson (N. J. Err. & App.) 33 Atl. 393.
Our conclusion in this respect is necessarily based upon the bills of exception signed by the court below. Where such bills state the course of the trial differently from the printed copy of the stenographer's notes (as is the case in this paper book), the appellate court relies exclusively upon the official certificate of the judicial officer.
The judgment is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Argeros v. State
... ... 343, 76 P. 1096; Lewis v ... State, 25 So. 1017; McLeroy v. State, 25 So ... 247; Vickery v. McCormick, 20 N.E. 495; State v ... McKimtry, 100 Ia. 82, 69 N.W. 267; State v ... Cater, 69 N.W. 881; State v. Moore, 25 Ia. 128; ... State v. Benge, 61 Ia. 658, 17 N.W. 100; Ryan v ... State, 36 A. 706; State v. Fitzgerald, 47 A ... 403.) it was proven by the witness Morgenous that defendant ... attempted to bribe and intimidate him; in testing the ... sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction the appellate ... court will accept the testimony of the prosecution ... ...
-
Lowenstein v. Lohman, 35.
...must give way to the certificate of the trial court as to what happened where the two are in conflict. Ryan v. State, GO N. J. Law, 33, 36 A. 706; Connolly v. Public Service Railway Co., 94 N. J. Law, at page 160, 109 A. 507; Klemmt v. Yeskel, 102 N. J. Law, at page 421, 131 A. 871; State v......
- State v. City of Orange