Singelakis v. Davidson

• Decision Date: 11 December 1936
• Docket Number: No. 219.,219.
• Citation: 188 A. 443
• Parties: SINGELAKIS v. DAVIDSON, Judge, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

188 A. 443

SINGELAKIS

v. DAVIDSON, Judge, et al.

No. 219.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 11, 1936.

Paul Singelakis was convicted as a disorderly person, and he brings certiorari, naming Robert H. Davidson, Judge of the Passaic County Court of Quarter Sessions, and another as respondents.

Reversed.

Argued October term, 1936, before BROGAN, C. J., and CASE and PERSKIE, JJ.

Walter V. Schwartz, of Paterson, for prosecutor.

PERSKIE, Justice.

The writ of certiorari in this cause brings up for review the action (no judgment or order is made to appear in the record submitted to us) of the court of quarter sessions of the county of Passaic in refusing the motion made in behalf of the prosecutor to set aside his conviction, as a disorderly person, in the court of the First criminal judicial district of the county of Passaic.

No brief is filed for the respondents. From the meager record submitted we learn that one Helen Fotinis charged that prosecutor obtained meals and other accommodations at her premises, which she alleged was a boarding house, for a period of five months and for which there was due her $137; that the prosecutor without notice and with intent to defraud her left the premises, and therefore prosecutor violated section 59—8k (erroneously designated as section 8—0 in the complaint) of our Disorderly Persons act (Revision 1898) as amended, 1 Cum.Supp (1911-1924) p. 946; chapter 153, P.L.1921, p. 426, which provides as follows: "1. Any person who shall obtain food, lodging or other accommodation or service at any hotel, inn, boarding or eating house, or culinary establishment, or hospital, with intent to defraud the owner or keeper thereof, shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person."

The return to the writ discloses that the prosecutor waived a trial by jury; entered a plea of not guilty and submitted himself, without objection, to the jurisdiction of the First criminal judicial district court.

The record discloses that complainant testified:

"That she occupied a flat consisting of five rooms, comprising a kitchen, a dining room, a parlor and two bed rooms, and also had two rooms in the attic; that she lived there with her husband and three minor children and an adult brother."

"That she had 'sometimes two, sometimes three, sometimes four, sometimes five boarders'; that the said Paul Singelakis had boarded in her house for about five years, that on or about the 28th day of November, 1935, he had left her premises without notifying her, he being indebted to her to the amount of $137.00 for meals and lodging representing a period of approximately five months."

And the record further discloses: "That Paul Singelakis, the defendant, testified that he did not owe the said Helen Fotinis the sum of $137.00; that he did not leave the premises without notifying her with the intent to defraud her."

The judge of the said court adjudged prosecutor—defendant below—guilty as charged, placed him on probation and ordered him to make restitution to the complainant at the rate of $2 a week. Thereafter, for reason not made to appear, but characterized as a "sufficient reason," the judge set the judgment aside and the cause was listed for a retrial. It was retried. The judge states that the testimony on the second trial was substantially the same as that which was adduced at the first trial— "no new witness or new evidence"—so he again adjudged prosecutor guilty as charged and imposed the same sentence he first imposed on prosecutor. Appeal was then taken by the prosecutor to the court of quarter sessions of Passaic county. The proceeding in that court appears under the caption "Order of Affirmance." That proceeding, as it appears in the record, consists of a statement that the court met; it sets forth the name of counsel for the state and prosecutor, and that counsel for the latter moved (no grounds stated) to have the conviction of the lower court set aside. And that "after argument of counsel, the court denied the motion."

Two points are here argued for the prosecutor. First, that the proofs failed to establish that complainant conducted a boarding house, and therefore, the court was without jurisdiction, in the...