State v. Krich

• Decision Date: 28 December 1939
• Docket Number: No. 6.,6.
• Citation: 9 A.2d 803
• Parties: STATE v. KRICH et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

9 A.2d 803

STATE

v. KRICH et al.

No. 6.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Dec. 28, 1939.

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Cumberland County.

Max Krich and others were convicted of conspiracy to cheat and defraud an insurance company, and they bring error.

Reversed and venire de novo awarded.

Argued October term, 1939, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PORTER, JJ.

Frederic M. P. Pearse, of Newark, for plaintiffs-inerror.

Thomas G. Tuso, of Vineland, for de-fendant-inerror.

DONGES, Justice.

Plaintiffs-inerror were convicted of a conspiracy to cheat and defraud an insurance company. The substance of the charge is that in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud the insurance company, Max Krich brought suit against Herman Krich for damages, alleging that he was injured as a result of a collision on June 6, 1936, between the automobile of Herman Krich and another automobile, whilst Max Krich was an invitee therein, when, in fact, he did not sustain his alleged injuries on that occasion; and that the defendant Yetta Krich, wife of Max Krich, conspired with the other defendants to mulct the insurance company by falsely swearing that the injuries of her husband were the result of the occurrence of June 6th. The admitted fact is that there was a collision between the automobile of Herman Krich and another automobile on April 18th, 1936, while Max Krich was an occupant of his brother's automobile, and that on June 6th, 1936, there was a collision between Herman's automobile and another automobile. Standard Accident Insurance Company issued to Herman Krich a policy of liabilky insurance covering the operations of a Packard sedan owned by him, on May 2nd, 1936. So far as appears there was no insurance covering the collision of April 18th, 1936, but a policy was in effect at the time of the collision of June 6th, 1936. The state alleged that the injuries of Max were not received in the collision of June 6th, 1936, but in the prior collision of April 18th, 1936. There was abundant testimony that prior to June 6th, 1936, Max Krich was suffering from injuries received in the collision of April 18th.

Plaintiffs-inerror urge three grounds for reversal, as follows: (1) That the indictment is defective in failing to charge an offense; (2) that it was error to admit in evidence testimony of Herman Krich, taken in the civil proceeding, of conversations with his attorney in that suit, and in permitting the attorney of Herman Krich in the civil suit to testify in the criminal proceedings as to conversations he had with his client in preparation for the trial of the civil suit on the ground they were confidential communications; and (3) that the trial judge should have directed verdicts of acquittal and that the verdicts are contrary to the evidence.

We conclude that the indictment was sufficient and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

We are of opinion that the admission in the trial of this indictment, over objection, of the testimony of the attorney for defendant Herman Krich in the civil suit and that of his secretary as to communications to him was error.

Under the terms of the policy of insurance, the company furnished an attorney to defend. It is undisputed that the attorney filed an answer for the defendant; that he interviewed the defendant in preparation for trial; and that he actually...