State v. Dimant

• Decision Date: 22 November 1905
• Citation: 62 A. 286,73 N.J.L. 131
• Parties: STATE v. DIMANT.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

62 A. 286

73 N.J.L. 131

STATE

v. DIMANT.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 22, 1905.

Certiorari to Court of Quarter Sessions, Camden County.

Jacob N. Dimant was indicted for keeping a disorderly house, and defendant brings certiorari Motion to quash denied.

Argued June term, 1905, before GARRISON and GARRETSON, JJ.

Frank T. Lloyd, Prosecutor of the Pleas, for the State. Ferdinand A. Rex, for defendant.

GARRETSON, J. The indictment has been removed into this court for the purpose of allowing the defendant to move to quash it. This motion is now made, and the ground of objection to the indictment is that it does not charge any crime or misdemeanor under the law. The allegations of the indictment are that Jacob N. Dimant and others, at times and a place specified, "unlawfully did keep and maintain a certain common ill-governed and disorderly house, and in the said house, for their own lucre and gain certain persons, then on the said other days and times unlawfully and willingly did cause and procure to frequent and come, and that the said Dimant and others then and there in said house did make loans to said persons of certain sums of money at usurious rates of interest and in excess of the amounts provided by law, to the great damage and common nuisance," etc.

It cannot be disputed that a place where persons gather together to do acts which by law are made crimes or misdemeanors is a disorderly house. State v. Lovell, 39 N. J. Law, 463. It is provided by statute (Gen. St. p. 3704, § 7) "that no person or corporation shall upon contract take, directly or indirectly for a loan of any money, wares, merchandise, goods and chattels above the value of six dollars for the forbearance of one hundred dollars, for a year and after rate for a greater or less sum or for longer or for shorter time," and the penalty for the violation of this statute is found in section 2, Gen. St p. 3703, and is that in suits to enforce any contracts on which a higher rate of interest shall be reserved than is allowed by the law of the place where the contract was made no interest whatever is recoverable.

In the case of McClean v. State, 49 N. J. Law, 471, 9 Atl. 681, decided in the Court of Errors. Chancellor Runyon delivered the opinion of the court. McClean was indicted for keeping a disorderly house. The offense was carried on by him in a box or booth upon the grounds of a society for horse racing, in the business of bookmaking or betting upon horses. The box or booth was frequented during the racing season by numbers of persons who were wont to bet upon the races. The court says: "The defendant there kept a place of public resort for the purpose of betting upon the result of horse races. Under the fifty-sixth section of the act for...