State v. De Hart

• Decision Date: 12 January 1925
• Citation: 129 A. 427
• Parties: STATE v. DE HART.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Common Pleas

129 A. 427

STATE

v. DE HART.

Court of Common Pleas of New Jersey, Essex County.

Jan. 12, 1925.

Robert De Hart was convicted in recorder's court of driving automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liqour, and he appealed to court of common pleas, questioning jurisdiction of recorder's court and judgment of conviction on merits, where on trial de novo, he was again found guilty and motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction denied.

George S. Harris, Town Atty., of Montclair, for the State.

William H. Rawson, of Bloomfleld, for defendant.

PORTER, J. This case comes before this court on an appeal from the recorder's court of the town of Montclair, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act (3 Comp. St. 1910, p. 3426). The defendant was charged with driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, was tried, and found guilty in the recorder's court. A trial de novo being had here, two witnesses were produced on behalf of the state and none on behalf of the defendant.

Joseph Casey, a police officer of Montclair, testified that he was called to the corner of Greenwood avenue and Glen Ridge avenue, Montclair, at about 12:55 on the morning of Sunday, September 14, 1924, where two automobiles had collided. He made inquiry as to who was in charge of the respective automobiles, and was told by Mr. Mayo that he was in charge of one, and by the defendant that he was in charge of the other one. The officer then asked for and received the licenses of both men. He states that no one was in the defendant's car, and that he did not see him operating his car. He further says that he noticed that the defendant's eyes were swollen and heavy, that he had difficulty in closing the automobile door, and that he was unsteady in his walk. He took him to the police station and made a report to the lieutenant, who then sent for the town physician. The officer further testified that he was present when the doctor came and examined the defendant, and says that he observed that the defendant could not walk in a straight line when asked to do so by the doctor. During the afternoon of the same day, the officer went to the home of the police recorder and there made a formal complaint against the defendant, charging him with driving his automobile on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

The other witness called on behalf of the state was Dr. Maurice Cohen, town physician of Montclair. He testified that he examined the defendant on September 14th at the police station. He found that the defendant had an alcoholic breath, a staggering gait, thick speech, dilated pupils of the eyes, cold, clammy skin, decreased knee jerks, and that he unintelligently answered questions. From this examination the doctor found that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Defendant's attorney urges, in support of a motion to dismiss, that there is no evidence that the defendant had been driving his car. That is the only question of fact in the case, because the only testimony concerning his condition, on the night in question, is that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant does not take the stand himself, nor bring any witnesses to testify, either that he was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, nor that he had not been driving his car. There is no testimony that there was anyone with him in the car. The police officer testifies that there was no one in the car when he arrived, no companions of the defendant accompanied him to the police station or made themselves known to the officer, nor have any appeared to testify, either in the court...