State v. Bleichner, A--16
Decision Date | 06 February 1951 |
Docket Number | No. A--16,A--16 |
Citation | 11 N.J.Super. 542,78 A.2d 577 |
Parties | STATE v. BLEICHNER. |
Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Samuel P. Orlando, Camden, argued the cause for defendant-appellant (John L. Morrissey, Camden, attorney).
Benjamin Asbell, Ast. County Pros., Camden, argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent (Mitchell H. Cohen, pros. of Camden county, Camden, attorney).
Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE and WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McGEEHAN, S.J.A.D.
Lawrence G. Bleichner and William J. Sheehan were jointly indicted, and at the trial in the Camden County Court the defendant Bleichner was convicted and defendant Sheehan was acquitted. Defendant Bleichner appeals from the judgment of conviction.
The indictment charged that Lawrence G. Bleichner and William J. Sheehan 'being the contractors engaged to erect a certain dwelling house, to wit, a bungalow, on Walnut Street, Audubon, New Jersey, for one Edgar A. Heubel, and being entrusted as such contractors with the sum of ($2930.00) two thousand nine hundred and thirty dollars, they, the said Lawrence G. Bleichner and William J. Sheehan, did unlawfully and fraudulently convert the said sum of two thousand nine hundred and thirty dollars ($2930.00) to their own use, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Edgar A. Heubel, contrary to the provisions of R.S. 2:124--16 (N.J.S.A.).'
R.S. 2:124--16, N.J.S.A. provides:
On May 5, 1948, Edgar A. Heubel, the complaining witness, and Margaret, his wife, called at the defendants' place of business in Camden, in answer to an advertisement. There they met the defendant Sheehan, who told them that his partner Bleichner was the 'contractor and builder in this organization' and that he would be in soon. When Bleichner came in, they discussed with him the building of a home. They were shown a scale model of a five-room bungalow and agreed to have such a home built for them on a lot which they owned in Audubon. Defendant Bleichner then produced a printed form of contract headed: 'William J. Sheehan Co., Building Contracting, 333 Market Street, Camden, New Jersey' and filled it out. This contract provided that a standard five-room bungalow would be completed for $6,930, which was to be paid by the Heubels in instalments at specified times. This agreement was signed by the Heubels and by the defendant Bleichner. The Heubels paid $250 to defendant Sheehan, in defendant Bleichner's presence, at the time of the signing of the contract on May 5, 1948; and between May 5, 1948 and September 11, 1948, made additional payments of $2,680 to defendant Bleichner, and receipts for all the payments totaling $2,930, signed by defendant Bleichner, were endorsed on the back of the written agreement of May 5, 1948. The payments made by the Heubels not only met the required instalments under the agreement at the time, but were in excess thereof.
When the agreement was signed, Bleichner informed the Heubels that the house could be built within ten to twelve weeks. When the Heubels complained from time to time about the failure to start the construction, Bleichner gave various excuses. After the last payment by the Heubels in September, 1948, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Engels
...v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625, 31 A. 280 (Sup.Ct.1895); State v. Solomon, 97 N.J.L. 252, 117 A. 260 (E. & A. 1922); State v. Bleichner, 11 N.J.Super. 542, 78 A.2d 577 (App.Div.1951); State v. Lombardo, 20 N.J.Super. 317, 90 A.2d 39 (App.Div.1952); State v. Algor, 26 N.J.Super. 527, 98 A.2d 340 (......
-
State v. Barbossa
...of the construction moneys for another purpose prior to the payment of all proper claims and charges thereon. State v. Bleichner, 11 N.J.Super. 542, 78 A.2d 577 (App.Div.1951). (at 59, 120 A.2d at The court clearly distinguished acceptance and possession of the money from use of the money b......
-
State v. Low
...on and completion of the work on the buildings. The difference between the instant indictments and that in State v. Bleichner, 11 N.J.Super. 542, 78 A.2d 577 (App.Div.1951), relied upon by defendants, is that the indictment there failed in any wise to state this constituent element of the A......
-
State v. Lombardo, A--539
...v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625, 31 A. 280 (Sup.Ct.1895); State v. Solomon, 97 N.J.L. 252, 117 A. 260 (E. & A.1922); State v. Bleichner, 11 N.J.Super. 542, 78 A.2d 577 (App.Div.1951). The omission of an essential element cannot be supplied by inference or implication. State v. De Vita, 6 N.J.Super......