State v. Hendrickson

• Decision Date: 03 November 1920
• Citation: 111 A. 542
• Parties: STATE v. HENDRICKSON.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

111 A. 542

STATE

v. HENDRICKSON.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 3, 1920.

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Gloucester County.

James H. Hendrickson was convicted of assault and battery, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Argued June term, 1920, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BERGEN and KATZENBACH, JJ.

George B. Marshall, of Woodbury, for plaintiff in error.

Oscar B. Redrow, Prosecutor of the Pleas, of Camden, for the State.

GUMMERE, C. J. The defendant was convicted in the Gloucester quarter sessions of assault and battery committed upon one Walter Devlin. The case comes before us on strict bill of exceptions and assignments of error.

The first two grounds upon which we are asked to reverse this conviction are: (1) That there was error in the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant at the close of the state's case; and (2) that there was like error in refusing a similar motion when all the testimony was in. It is enough to say, in disposing of this contention, that an application in a criminal case to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant is addressed to the discretion of the court, and that consequently judicial action thereon is not reviewable on error, except in cases which are brought before the reviewing tribunal under the provision of the 136th section of the Criminal Procedure Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1863). State v. Jaggers, 71 N. J. Law, 281, 283, 58 Atl. 1014, 108 Am. St. Rep. 746. But even if this matter was properly before us, it would avail the defendant nothing. The case clearly shows that, on the testimony submitted, the state was entitled to go to the jury upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

The next contention on the part of the defendant is that this conviction should be reversed, because the trial court erroneously admitted in evidence a complaint, warrant, and commitment, made and issued by the defendant against Devlin at the time of the committing of the assault. The case made by the state was that, while Devlin and the defendant were engaged in a verbal altercation with relation to the continued occupancy by Devlin of premises apparently in charge of the defendant as agent, the latter committed an unprovoked assault upon Devlin, first striking him and then dragging him into his (defendant's) office, which was just across the street; that defendant (who was a justice of the peace) then wrote out a complaint against Devlin, charging him with disorderly conduct, and afterwards issued a warrant and commitment upon the complaint, placing them in the hands of one Ellinger, a constable, who took Devlin into custody, and then, with the defendant accompanying him, took Devlin to the county jail at Woodbury, and turned him over to the jailor. It seems to us manifest on these facts that the documentary proof was properly admitted. The false arrest and imprisonment were just as much a part of the assault as was the original blow struck by the defendant, and the steps taken by him to make the arrest and imprisonment appear to be legal were, of course, a part of the res gestæ. Moreover, even if the admission of this proof had been technically erroneous, it was not harmful to the defendant, for he himself admitted on the...