State v. Alfin, 258.
| Decision Date | 18 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 258.,258. |
| Citation | 28 A.2d 649,129 N.J.L. 196 |
| Parties | STATE v. ALFIN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The indictment in this case held faulty as not sufficiently specific in allegations of fact.
Louis Alfin was indicted for obtaining money or property by false pretense. To review an adverse ruling, Louis Alfin brings certiorari.
Indictment quashed.
Before BROGAN, C. J, and PARKER and PORTER, JJ.
George F. Losche, of Hackcnsack, for prosecutor.
John J. Breslin, Jr., of Hackensack, Prosecutor of the Pleas, for the State.
The indictment, specifically citing R.S. 2:134-1, NJ.S.A. 2:134-1, which reads as follows: "Any person who, knowingly or designedly, by color of any false token, counterfeit letter or writing, or by any false pretense, shall obtain from any person any money, wares, merchandise, goods or chattels or other valuable thing, with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," charges a violation of that act, in that "Louis Alfin* * * between the eighteenth day of July, 1941 and the ninth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-two at the City aforesaid, in the County aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, did knowingly, by color of false and counterfeit writings: to wit: false and counterfeit salary vouchers in the names of persons employed or formerly employed by the Masterbilt Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, obtain from the said Masterbilt Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, the sum of Two Hundred, Eighty-Eight Dollars and Ninety Four Cents, lawful money of the United States of America, with intent to cheat the said Masterbilt Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, thereof, in violation of title 2, chapter 134, section 1 of the Revised Statutes of 1937, against the peace of the State, the Government and dignity of the same."
We are clear that the allegations of this indictment are too indefinite to require the party charged to go to trial thereunder: and that even a bill of particulars would not meet the fundamental difficulty. We are not unmindful of the provisions of R.S. 2:188-18, NJ.S.A. 2:188-18, that "in any indictment for fraudulently obtaining or attempting to obtain any property by false token, counterfeit writing or other false pretenses, it shall be sufficient to allege that the defendant did the act with intent to defraud, without alleging an intent to defraud any particular person, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. John P. Callaghan Co.
...or whether several sums of money were obtained by several different false pretenses. Defendant relies upon State v. Alfin, 129 N.J.L. 196, 28 A.2d 649 (Sup.Ct.1942); State v. Fromm, 65 N.J.Super. 30, 166 A.2d 832 (App.Div.1961), and State v. Torrance, 41 N.J.Super. 445, 125 A.2d 403 (App.Di......
-
State v. Torrance
...the purpose of joining separate and distinct offenses, even of a like nature. R.R. 3:4--7, formerly Rule 2:4--15; State v. Alfin, 129 N.J.L. 196, 28 A.2d 649 (Sup.Ct.1942); State v. Weleck, supra. Here, the defendant is entitled to know whether he is charged with obtaining one lump sum or s......
-
State v. Siciliano, A--229
...and distinct from that set forth in the other. DeJianne v. United States, 282 F. 737, 741, 742 (3rd Cir. 1922); State v. Alfin, 129 N.J.L. 196, 197, 28 A.2d 649 (Sup.Ct.1942). 'A failure of proof of the act selected by the State in support of the charge of the indictment (here transpose 'co......
-
State v. Monia
...was not removed to this court before trial thereon, on certiorari, to test its validity. Cf. State v. Clement, supra; State v. Alfin, 129 N.J.L. 196, 28 A.2d 649. No motion in arrest of judgment was made. Nor is its validity properly before us either under R.S. 2:195-1 or R.S. 2:195-16 even......