State v. Jenkins
| Decision Date | 13 May 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 19.,19. |
| Citation | 59 A.2d 372,137 N.J.L. 209 |
| Parties | STATE v. JENKINS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Supreme Court.
Certiorari proceeding by Harry Jenkins and Edward J. Mescall to quash an indictment for nonfeasance and misconduct in public office. To review an order quashing the indictment, 136 N.J.L. 112, 54 A.2d 804, the State brings error. On a motion by defendants in error to dismiss the writ of error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Horace K. Roberson, Pros. of the Pleas, of Bayonne (William P. Gannon, Asst. Pros., of Jersey City, of counsel), for the State, plaintiff-in-error.
Thomas H. Brown, of Jersey City, for defendant-in-error.
Defendants-in-error were indicted by the Hudson County Grand Jury for nonfeasance and misconduct in public office. They, having pleaded not guilty to the indictment were permitted to withdraw that plea for the purpose of making application to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The application was made and the writ allowed. That Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Case held the indictment defective for uncertainty and an order quashing the indictment was filed. From that order this writ of error was sued out by the State. A motion was subsequently made by defendants-in-error to dismiss the writ of error. A determination of this motion was held by the Court pending argument on the merits.
It is settled law that a writ of error is not available to review the exercise by the Supreme Court of its discretionary power to quash an indictment. State v. Riggs, 92 N.J.L. 575, 106 A. 467. Particularly is that rule applicable in the instant case where the judicial discretion exercised by that Court was not used capriciously in violation of settled legal principles. State v. Potter, 83 N.J.L. 428, 85 A. 216, affirmed 85 N.J.L. 388, 91 A. 1071.
The writ of error will be dismissed.
For reversal: The CHANCELLOR, Justices BODINE, DONGES, HEHER and EASTWOOD, and Judges WELLS, DILL, FREUND and McLEAN-8.
For affirmance: Justice WACHENFELD and Judge SCHETTINO-2.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. W. U. Tel. Co.
...134 N.J.L. 366, 48 A.2d 300 (Sup.Ct.1946); State v. Jenkins, 136 N.J.L. 112, 54 A.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.1947), error dismissed 137 N.J.L. 209, 59 A.2d 372 (E. & A.1948); State v. McGovern, 136 N.J.L. 115, 54 A.2d 812 (Sup.Ct.1947); State v. Russo, 6 N.J.Super, 250, 71 A.2d 142 (App.Div.1950); 31 C......
-
State v. Williamson
... ... De Vita, 6 N.J.Super. 344, 347, 71 A.2d 390, 391 (App.Div.1950). Examples of indictments which failed to meet the enunciated tests of specificity are to be found in the cases cited, and also in State v. Jenkins, 136 N.J.L. 112, 54 A.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.1947); State v. Spear, 63 N.J.L. 179, 42 A. 840 (Sup.Ct.1899); State v. Schmid, 57 N.J.L. 625, 31 A. 280 (Sup.Ct.1895), and State v. Allgor, 78 N.J.L. 313, 73 A. 76 (Sup.Ct.1909) ... Examples of indictments which have been found not wanting in ... ...
-
State v. Williamson
...by the inculpatory proof at the trial. Cf. State v. Jenkins, 136 N.J.L. 112, 54 A.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.1947), error dismissed 137 N.J.L. 209, 59 A.2d 372 (E. & A. 1948); State v. Bove, 98 N.J.L. 350, 116 A. 766 (Sup.Ct.1922) affirmed 98 N.J.L. 576, 119 A. 926 (E. & A. 1923). He is entitled to be ......
-
State v. Malone
...for a similar rejection by the court in State v. Jenkins, 136 N.J.L. 112, 54 A.2d 804 (Sup.Ct.1947), appeal dismissed, 137 N.J.L. 209, 59 A.2d 372 (E. & A. 1948), and in State v. Daly, 3 N.J.Super. 247, 66 A.2d 354 (App.Div. 1949), certiorari denied, 3 N.J. 367, 70 A.2d 534 (1949). The resp......