State v. Goldman, 8.
| Decision Date | 19 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 8.,8. |
| Citation | 185 A. 505 |
| Parties | STATE v. GOLDMAN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Essex County.
William A. Goldman was convicted of larceny of quantity of oil and four pumps, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Argued January term, 1936, before BROGAN, C. J., and LLOYD and DONGES, JJ.
William A. Goldman, pro se.
William A. Wachenfeld, Joseph E. Conlon, and Leon W. Kapp, all of Newark, for the State.
Plaintiff in error was convicted of the larceny of a quantity of oil and four pumps, the property of Linderman & Co., Inc., a corporation. The case is presented under both assignments of error and specifications of causes for reversal.
The first two points urged for reversal are that there was no proof of ownership in the Linderman Oil Company, Inc., and that there was no proof of a felonious intent on the part of the plaintiff in error.
The history of the case was that Emerson was a tenant of 295 Badger avenue, Newark, under a lease from Linderman & Co. His rent became in arrears, and on May 10, 1934, the landlord instituted distraint proceedings. Under these proceedings the goods here involved were distrained for rent by a constable and resulted in a sale of the goods on June 11, 1934, to the landlord, and to it a bill of sale was delivered. Emerson, however, continued to occupy the premises under an arrangement, according to his own testimony, that he should dispose of the goods and render an account to the landlord in the form of a portion of the net profits of the sales that he might effect.
Thereafter on June 16, 1934, the Hartol Products Company obtained a judgment against Emerson and execution was placed in the hands of Goldman, the plaintiff in error, a constable of Essex county. Under this authority Goldman visited Emerson, and being unable to collect the judgment, after some delay levied upon and seized the oil and pumps, and caused the same to be taken away to a garage for storage, at the same time posting notice of sale on a pole in front of the premises. It appeared that when Goldman made the levy the notice of sale under the distraint proceedings was still posted on the wall. This notice he seems to have copied.
There was abundance of evidence to establish the ownership of Linderman & Co. Emerson so testified, as did also officials of this company. We think there was evidence sufficient also to go to the jury of the criminal intent. While the goods were in the possession of Emerson, Goldman was apprised that there had been a levy upon those goods and a sale had. This would appear to have been sufficient to put him on guard that he might be taking away the property of some one other than that of the defendant Emerson, and if so, a felonious purpose would be implied in law.
While we think the case was for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graziani, A--168
...586, 588, 99 A. 313 (E. & A. 1916); State v. Silverman, 100 N.J.L. 249, 252--254, 126 A. 618 (Sup.Ct.1924); State v. Goldman, 14 N.J.Misc. 463, 465, 185 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1936); 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), § 2363, p. 726. Cf. State v. Manney, 24 N.J. 571, 583, 133 A.2d 313 As stated, th......
-
State v. Moffa
...N.J.L. 586, 588, 99 A. 313 (E. & A. 1916); State v. Silverman, 100 N.J.L. 249, 252, 126 A. 618 (Sup.Ct.1924); State v. Goldman, 14 N.J.Misc. 463, 465, 185 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1936). In State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 178, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), reversed on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322,......
-
State v. DiModica
...89 N.J.L. 586, 588, 99 A. 313 (E. & A.1916); State v. Silverman, 100 N.J.L. 249, 252, 126 A. 618 (Sup.Ct.1924); State v. Goldman, 14 N.J.Misc. 463, 465, 185 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1936); State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 178, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), reversed on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322, ......
-
State v. Clement
...586, 588, 99 A. (313) 319 (E. & A.1916); State v. Silverman, 100 N.J.L. 249, 252, 126 A. 618 (Sup.Ct.1924); State v. Goldman, 14 N.J.Misc. 463, 465, 185 A. 505 (Sup.Ct.1936). In State v. Samurine, 47 N.J.Super. 172, 178, 135 A.2d 574 (App.Div.1957), reversed on other grounds, 27 N.J. 322, 1......