State v. Dilts
| Decision Date | 11 March 1908 |
| Citation | 69 A. 255,76 N.J.L. 410 |
| Parties | STATE v. DILTS, Sheriff. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6608-6609; vol. 8, p. 7803.]
Habeas corpus by the state against Jacob Dilts, sheriff, etc., to compel the discharge of petitioner from custody under certain indictments. Application denied, and petitioner remanded to custody.
Argued February term, 1908, before REED, PARKER, and VOORHEES, JJ.
H. Burdett Herr, for the prisoner. George K. Large, Prosecutor of the Pleas, for defendant.
PARKER, J. Charles T. Vail, being confined in the common jail of Hunterdon county, petitioned for his discharge on habeas corpus, basing his application on the provisions of section 53 of the criminal procedure act of 1898 (P. L. p. 885), providing that "every indictment shall be tried the term or session in which issue is joined, or the term after, unless the court for just cause shall allow further time for the trial thereof; and if such indictment be not so tried as aforesaid, the defendant shall be discharged on his own recognizance."
A writ being awarded and returned, it appears from the return and the admissions of counsel at the argument that two indictments for arson, which we shall call Nos. 1 and 2, were found against petitioner in April term, 1907, of the Hunterdon oyer and terminer, and apparently handed to the quarter sessions for trial. He was arraigned five days afterward, and in June, 1907, tried on indictment No. 1, the jury disagreeing. No trial was had on No. 2 that term, nor on either No. 1 or 2 in September term. But at that term a third indictment for arson on another occasion was found, the accused being already in custody on the other two, and under No. 3 he was at once arraigned and tried, this trial also resulting in a disagreement. The prisoner was then remanded until December term, at which he was again tried on No. 3 and acquitted. No trial on No. 1 or No. 2 has been had up to this time, which is still in December term, 1907. He demanded trial on every pending indictment at each term, but the prosecution refused to move any of them except as above.
After his acquittal on No. 3 in December term motion to discharge the prisoner on his own recognizance under the statute quoted above was made and granted as to No. 2 (), but denied on No. 1. This motion the prisoner now claims should have been granted. The court also refused (as it had a right to do) the prisoner's application to set a day for trial under section 70 of the act, and (we presume, though the return does not so state) continued No. 1 until the next term, the prosecutor objecting to its trial before a jury of the December panel.
Without going into the question whether the court had or had not just cause under section 53...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Janiec
...judgment the delay was not unreasonable and there was no violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. Cf. State v. Dilts, 76 N.J.L. 410, 69 A. 255 (Sup.Ct.1906). Appellant also contends that the verdict of guilt of grand larceny is contrary to the weight of the evidence. The cor......
-
State v. Wright
...264 (Fla.); Glover's Case, 109 Mass. 340 (matter of judicial discretion); State v. Fromkin, 174 Neb. 849, 120 N.W.2d 25; State v. Dilts, 76 N.J.Law 410, 69 A. 255; State v. George, 271 N.C. 438, 156 S.E.2d 845; State v. Lamphere, 20 S.D. 98, 104 N.W. We do not think we can say that § 795.2 ......
-
Ruester v. Turner
...with the courts. See Glover's Case, 109 Mass. 340 (1872); People v. Eickert, 124 Ill.App.2d 394, 260 N.E.2d 465 (1970); State v. Dilts, 76 N.J.L. 410, 69 A. 255 (1908); State v. Fromkin, 174 Neb. 849, 120 N.W.2d 25 (1963) follows this approach, but with the additional twist that the retrial......
-
State v. Fromkin
...16 C.J. p. 442 note 38 [b], p. 446 notes 5, 6.' Illustrative of the above authorities is a case almost squarely in point. In State v. Dilts, 76 N.J.L. 410, 69 A. 255, the statute provided for a discharge if the defendant was not tried during the term, '* * * in which issue is joined, or the......