State v. Allgor
| Decision Date | 07 June 1909 |
| Citation | 73 A. 76,78 N.J.L. 313 |
| Parties | STATE v. ALLGOR. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
James M. Allgor was indicted by the Grand Jury of Monmouth County for maintaining a common nuisance, and sues out a writ of certiorari to review the indictment. Indictment quashed.
Argued February term, 1909, before REED, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.
Richard Doherty and Thomas F. Griffin, for prosecutor.
John S. Applegate, Jr., for the State.
Upon a prominent thoroughfare in the borough of Seabright, the prosecutor in this writ, according to the allegations of the indictment presented by the grand jury of Monmouth county, caused to be suspended and exhibited upon a rope from his building, to a pole near the edge of the highway, "a pair of blue overalls, one pair of dirty white overalls, one old piece of bed ticking, one pair of ladies' white drawers, two pair of men's red flannel drawers"; but the gravamen of the allegation consisted in the fact that the flaming red raiment of this segregation of human utilities bore the words "The M. Packor," "The M. McMahoney," anda certain placard which contained the words "They do say who stole the firemen's relief money," "They do say who stole the church money," which combination in the language of the indictment was "offensive to the senses, and a common nuisance to all the citizens of the state, there residing, inhabiting, and passing."
It is not perceived how the mere allegation of this act, without colloquium, innuendo, or inducement, to show the relation of Messrs. Packor and McMahoney to the firemen's fund or to the church fund, or to show that either fund had an existence, so as to make it the subject of larceny, can be construed into an allegation of criminality. In a common-law declaration seeking only damages for an alleged libel, such an allegation would be demurrable. 1 Chitty, Pl. 400; Joralemon v. Pomeroy, 22 N. J. Law, 271. And a fortiori, where the liberty of the citizen is at stake, is the objection valid and fatal. Non constat as the owner of the fee in the highway, upon which is imposed only a public easement, which may be in no wise interfered with by such an act, this defendant, so far as the indictment alleges, might insist upon the perfect legality of his act. Adams v. Rivers (N. Y.) 11 Barb. 390; Montclair Military Academy v. North Jersey St. Ry., 65 N. J. Law, 328, 47 Atl. 890.
Want of certainty in the statement of the offense is therefore the vice of this indictment, and at common law the rule is fundamental that an indictment must be certain in its allegations, so that it can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
...up. State v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625, 31 A. 280 (Sup.Ct. 1895); State v. Spear, 65 N.J.L. 179, 42 A. 840 (Sup.Ct.1899); State v. Allgor, 78 N.J.L. 313, 73 A. 76 (Sup.Ct.1909); State v. Borg, 152 A. 788, 9 N.J.Misc. 59 (Sup.Ct. 1931); State v. Bradway, 118 N.J.L. 17, 190 A. 778 (Sup.Ct.1937); ......
-
State v. Williamson
...State v. Spear, 63 N.J.L. 179, 42 A. 840 (Sup.Ct.1899); State v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625, 31 A. 280 (Sup.Ct.1895), and State v. Allgor, 78 N.J.L. 313, 73 A. 76 (Sup.Ct.1909). Examples of indictments which have been found not wanting in certainty are afforded by such cases as State v. Witte, 1......
-
Myers v. United States
...supra; Carpenter v. United States, supra; Lynch v. United States, supra; State v. Crouse, 117 Me. 363, 364, 104 A. 525; State v. Allgor, 78 N. J. Law, 313, 314, 73 A. 76; State v. Hatfield, 87 N. J. Law, 124, 93 A. 677; State v. Villa, 92 Vt. 121, 102 A. 935. No impractical standard of part......
-
State v. Ellenstein
...it will, upon inspection, disclose not merely what nature of crime but what particular crime was intended to be charged. State v. Allgor, 78 N.J.L. 313, 73 A. 76; State v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625, 31 A. 280. We think that a defendant should not be compelled to plead to so vague a charge of fa......