State v. Friedman., 2.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Writing for the Court | HEHER, Justice. |
| Citation | 52 A.2d 416,135 N.J.L. 419 |
| Parties | STATE v. FRIEDMAN. |
| Docket Number | No. 2.,2. |
| Decision Date | 18 April 1947 |
135 N.J.L. 419
52 A.2d 416
STATE
v.
FRIEDMAN.
No. 2.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
April 18, 1947.
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Atlantic County.
Louis Friedman also known as ‘Label’ Friedman, was convicted of selling chances in a number game, and he brings error.
Judgment affirmed.
October term, 1946, before CASE, C. J., and HEHER and COLIE, JJ.
Edward I. Feinberg, of Atlantic City (Isaac C. Ginsberg, of Atlantic City, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Lewis P. Scott, Pros. of the Pleas, and David R. Brone, Asst. Pros. of the Pleas, both of the Atlantic City, for the State.
HEHER, Justice.
The writ of error removed into this court, for review, the judgment of conviction of plaintiff in error, after a jury trial, upon all three counts of an indictment charging, as separate offenses, that on or about April 13, 1944, November 13, 1944, and February 9, 1945, in the City of Atlantic City, he ‘did sell to Samuel Zechtzer tickets, chances and shares in a certain lottery known as the ‘Number Game’ and also known as ‘Numbers,” more particularly described therein, contrary to R.S. 2:147-1(a), N.J.S.A.
The entire record of the trial proceedings is here pursuant to R.S. 2:195-16, N.J.S.A.
The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the several counts of the indictment is challenged. It is said that there was error in the refusal of the trial judge to grant motions for a directed verdict of acquittal, for such insufficiency, at the conclusion of the State's case and at the close of the whole case, and that, at all events, the verdict as to all three counts is contrary to the weight of the evidence. We find these points to be untenable.
There was a plenitude of proof of a sale by the accused to Zechtzer, on each of the occasions averred in the indictment, of a share or interest in a lottery of the character described therein. The defense was that the accused acted merely as Zechtzer's agent in the purchase of the lottery shares, and thus the sale thereof was made by a third person and not by the accused. This explanation was rejected by the jury as utterly implausible and incredible-a conclusion that is plainly not beyond the bounds of reason.
But it is said that there was no proof of the sale of a lottery ‘ticket’ on either occasion, and these transactions therefore did not fall within the prohibition of the cited statute. True, there was no delivery of a lottery ticket to Zechtzer; but that is not of the essence of the offense denounced by the statute and charged in the indictment. A lottery within the concept of the statute is a scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chance; and a lottery ticket is merely the evidence or token of the holder's participation in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laws
...and then continued on the specified date did not prejudicially depart from the charge in the indictment. See State v. Friedman, 135 N.J.L. 419, 421, 52 A.2d 416 (Sup.Ct.1947), aff'd 136 N.J.L. 634, 57 A.2d 390 (E. & A. 1948); Pearlman v. United States, 9 Cir., 20 F.2d 113, 114, cert. denied......
-
Silbert v. State
...on the happening of such event or contingency in the nature of a lottery, entitled the holder to money or property.' In State v. Friedman, 135 N.J.L. 419, 52 A.2d 416, the accused had been charged with selling 'tickets, chances and shares' in a lottery in violation of statute. The accused m......
-
State v. Witte
...indictment under review concerns a course of conduct constituting nonfeasance, not specific criminal acts. Compare State v. Friedman, 135 N.J.L. 419, 52 A.2d 416 (Sup.Ct.1947), affirmed 136 N.J.L. 634, 57 A.2d 390 (E. & The indictment charges with a Continuando an offense inherently continu......
-
State v. Brown
...Statutes, 435, § 410; 59 C.J., Statutes, 1113 to 1119, incl. §§ 659 and 660; Head v. Hunter, 10 Cir., 141 F.2d 449; State v. Friedman, 135 N.J.L. 419, 52 A.2d 416. Neither have we been unmindful of contentions to the effect 21-1502, supra, does not require, and the information does not alle......