State v. Haimowicz

Decision Date17 January 1941
Docket NumberNo. 5.,5.
Citation17 A.2d 472,125 N.J.L. 526
PartiesSTATE v. HAIMOWICZ.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. On writ of error in a criminal case, a certificate of the trial court returning "the record and proceedings mentioned" in the within writ of error, with all things touching the same "does not authenticate" the entire record of the proceedings had "upon the trial" as contemplated by N.J.S.A. 2:195-16.

2. Where in a criminal case on writ of error there is no "specification of causes for reversal" as provided by N.J.S.A. 2:195-18, the review is limited to that under strict writ of error.

3. On writ of error as at common law, weight of evidence is not considered as a ground of reversal.

4. A motion to quash an indictment is addressed to the discretion of the court, and the denial of such motion per se is not reviewable on strict writ of error.

5. In criminal cases, an exception not sealed by the court is nugatory for purposes of review.

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Hudson County.

Isidore Haimowicz was convicted of an offense, and he brings error.

Judgment affirmed.

Argued October term, 1940, before BROGAN, C. J., and PARKER and PERSKIE, JJ.

James A. Coolahan, of Jersey City, for plaintiff-inerror.

Daniel O'Regan, Prosecutor of Pleas, and William T. Cahill, Asst. Prosecutor, both of Jersey City, for the State.

PARKER, Justice.

The case was submitted on briefs, and although there was no certificate of the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial, P.L.1898, page 915: C.S.1910, page 1863: N.J.S.A. 2:195-16, it was briefed for plaintiff-inerror on that basis. Counsel, being apprised of this omission, obtained leave to supply such certificate nunc pro tunc, and has undertaken to do so; but the certificate now before us differs in no essential respect from the return to the writ of error, which certified only "the record and proceedings * * *" with all "things touching the same." The language of the certificate reads: "the record and proceedings mentioned" in the within writ of error with "all things touching the same". This is no authentication of "the entire record of the proceedings had upon the trial"; and without such authentication the review is only by strict writ of error. State v. Clark, 75 N.J.L. 473, 68 A. 114; State v. Webber, 77 N.J.L. 580, 72 A. 74; State v. Armstrong, 88 N.J.L. 280, 95 A. 997. Moreover, the case contains only assignments of error, and no specification of causes for reversal, as provided by Section 137 of the Criminal Procedure Act, now N.J.S.A. 2:195-18. Consequently, our review is limited properly to assignments of error based on the record, and a bill of exceptions. State v. Lyons, 70 N.J.L. 635, 639, 58 A. 398.

But we find no valid exception to consider. There are six assignments of error, of which the last two do not challenge any judicial action, and hence need no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • LABMD, Inc. v. Tiversa Holding Corp.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 29, 2023
    ...... held that a complaint is properly dismissed under. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) where it does not allege “enough. facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its. face,” id. at 570, or where the factual. content does not allow the court “to draw the. ......
  • State v. Garrison, 13.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 20, 1943
    ...136 of the Criminal Procedure Act now R.S. 2:195-16, N.J.S.A. 2:195-16. State v. Pisaniello, 88 N.J.L. 262, 96 A. 89; State v. Haimowicz, 125 N.J.L. 526, 17 A.2d 472. The indictment before us is not insufficient on its face. See State v. Borg, 152 A. 788, 9 N.J.Misc. 59. The trial court and......
  • Tager v. Coronet Curtain Corp., 129/463.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • January 20, 1941
    ......Augelli was appointed its statutory receiver. On October 7, 1940, Sam Horowitz, a resident of the state of New York, filed a petition herein which alleges, in substance: That on December 22, 1939, he entered into an agreement with the defendant ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT