State v. Hand
| Decision Date | 05 August 1904 |
| Citation | 58 A. 641,71 N.J.L. 137 |
| Parties | STATE v. HAND. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Cumberland County.
Leonard C. Hand was convicted of a violation of the oyster law, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued December term, 1903, before GUMMERE, C. J., and DIXON, SWAYZE, and HENDRICKSON, JJ.
Samuel Iredell and Howard Carrow, for plaintiff in error.
J. Hampton Fithian and Walter H. Bacon, for the State.
This writ brings up for review the entire record of the conviction of the defendant upon an indictment in the Cumberland quarter sessions for the violation of an amendment to the oyster law approved March 22, 1901 (P. L. p. 307), known as the "Rough Cull Law."
One of the errors assigned and urged as a ground for reversal is the refusal to quash the indictment. One of the alleged infirmities in the indictment is stated by counsel in this way: The pertinent words of the act are "all such oysters, oyster shells and other material shall be culled as aforesaid so closely that three bushels thereof taken from any portion of a deck load of oysters, after the same shall have been shoveled back from that part of the deck used for emptying the dredges and tongs aforesaid, shall not contain more than fifteen per centum of shells and other materials." And the neglect or refusal of any person to cull as aforesaid such oysters, oyster shells, and other material is declared to be a misdemeanor. The indictment charges in that particular that the defendant did then and there, etc., fail, neglect, and refuse to cull the said oysters, etc., so closely that three bushels thereof, etc., did not contain more than fifteen per centum of shells and other materials, etc. The charge plainly follows the words of the act, and that is sufficient. Another objection to the form of the indictment is this: The statute says the culling shall be done as soon as the same are emptied out of the dredges and tongs, and that all shells, etc., shall be immediately thrown back upon the beds, etc., from which the same were taken. The indictment fails to use the words "as soon" and "immediately" in charging these failures of duty. But we think the indictment charges at least the equivalent of these expressions. The indictment sets out the various acts and failures of duty which constitute the offense, as occurring consecutively in the order named in the statute. The day and date of the first fact alleged is given, and the others are stated as having "then and there" occurred. When this is so, it is to be inferred that the facts alleged were coexistent, occurring at the same point of time. 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 588.
The next error alleged is the admission in evidence of an alleged confession by the defendant made before the justice of the peace when he was first brought in under the warrant. Upon that occasion the justice read the complaint to the prisoner, and asked if he was guilty or not guilty. The reply was, "I am guilty." There was nothing said to the prisoner as preliminary to this question, by way of caution or otherwise. It is urged that he should have been cautioned. It is the duty of the court to ascertain that such incriminating statements made by a prisoner in custody, when offered in evidence, were voluntary, and not the product of hope or fear induced by those in authority over him. In the performance of this duty, the learned trial judge, before admitting the evidence, gave to the counsel of the prisoner an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, and to offer testimony by the defendant or others upon the question of whether the statement or confession was induced by the influence of hope or fear. This opportunity was declined by counsel, with the remark that the defense did not claim anything of the kind. And since there were no circumstances or other evidence in proof to indicate that the confession was obtained by illicit practices of any character, the determination of the trial judge that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
...best harmonizes with the object and intent of the Legislature as gathered from the whole context of the statute. State v. Hand, 71 N.J.L. 137, 58 A. 641 (Sup.Ct.1904). The rule of construction stated does not subject the statute to any strained or unnatural construction, but it is to be int......
-
Town of Green River v. Bunger
...Fur Co. v. United States, 2 Peters 358, 367; The Emily and The Caroline, 22 U.S. 381, 9 Wheat. 381, 389, 6 L.Ed. 116; State v. Hand, 71 N.J.L. 137, 58 A. 641; Attorney General v. Tongue, 12 Price 51, Heydon's Case, 3 Co. Rep. 7a. In United States v. Morris, 14 Peters 464, the defendant was ......
-
State v. Wise
...Roesel v. State, 62 N.J.L. 216, 41 A. 408 (E. & A.1898); State v. Young, 67 N.J.L. 223, 51 A. 939 (E. & A.1902); State v. Hand, 71 N.J.L. 137, 58 A. 641 (Sup.Ct.1904); State v. Foulds, 127 N.J.L. 336, 23 A.2d 895 (E. & A.1941); State v. Cole, 136 N.J.L. 606, 56 A.2d 898 (E. & A. 1948), cert......
-
State v. Rios
...confession 'to be admitted into evidence must be made to one in authority,' our law is quite to the contrary. State v. Hand, 71 N.J.L. 137, 139--140, 58 A. 641, 642 (Sup.Ct.1904), specifically provides that a confession may be taken by Another objection to this evidence was that the admissi......