State v. Link
| Decision Date | 08 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. A--87,A--87 |
| Citation | 14 N.J. 446,102 A.2d 609 |
| Parties | STATE v. LINK et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Albert S. Gross, Hackensack, argued the cause for appellants Leo Link, Violet Link and John E. Selser.
Milton T. Lasher, Hackensack, argued the cause for A. Theodore Holmes, as County Treasurer of the County of Bergen.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The query presented is whether the currency seized by law enforcement authorities in the execution of a search warrant directed to the residence of Leo Link, an admitted bookmaker, who later pleaded Non vult to an indictment charging him as such, was properly forfeited to the State.
The seizure was made from a wall safe in Link's residence, where he concededly conducted part of his bookmaking operations. The circumstances were as follows:
The sole occupation of Leo Link, alias J. W. Donaldson, in 1950 and for a long time prior thereto, was bookmaking. He received and paid off bets over the Western Union telegraph system. Originally he operated and resided in Hudson County but moved from Jersey City to 479 Beatrice Street, Teaneck, Bergen County, New Jersey, in 1943 with his wife Violet Link and his mother-in-law Louise Schanals.
In 1947 and thereafter he carried on his bookmaking activities through the Passaic office of the Western Union Telegraph Company. He received bets by telegraph from all parts of the country, but the main volume of this illegal business was transmitted to and emanated from the office of the telegraph company in Bridgeton, Cumberland County.
In June 1948 the police authorities of Cumberland County initiated an investigation in reference to the operations of the telegraph company at Bridgeton. It was disclosed that wagers on horse races were sent by telegraph from Bridgeton to Link, using the name of Donaldson, in Passaic County, and to C. J. Rich & Company in Illinois, and the winnings were sent to Bridgeton by telegraph money orders.
In April 1950 a Deputy Attorney General and other law enforcement officials raided the telegraph office, seized and impounded the many messages referring to horse race bets. The grand jury of Cumberland County on June 5, 1950 indicted the company and Frake, its manager, for maintaining a disorderly house at the Bridgeton office. Both defendants were convicted after trial and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. State v. Western Telegraph Co., 12 N.J. 468, 97 A.2d 480 (1953).
The evidence in that case indicated that on frequent occasions there were 20 to 25 people in the office sending telegrams to Donaldson and that approximately 8,000 money orders issued out of the Bridgeton office to Donaldson in Passaic County and Rich & Company during the six months commencing with November 1949.
Another indictment was returned against the company, Frake and Donaldson, alias Link, who were charged with conspiracy to make book.
On October 23, 1950, pursuant to a search warrant issued for that purpose, a number of law enforcement officials, headed by Mr. Stamler, then a Deputy Attorney General of the State, went to the Beatrice Street, Teaneck, address and there seized $127,000 in United States currency which they discovered, as already alluded to, in a safe recessed in a wall of the basement adjacent to a room where Link had a desk and a telephone from which he had apparently directed his bookmaking activities.
In the safe the raiding party found a warehouse receipt which led them to a warehouse in Palisades Park, Bergen County, where they took possession of records of a bookmaking operation conducted at the Teaneck residence.
No arrests were made for the ostensible reason that the appellant Leo Link had, prior to October 23, 1950, been arrested and admitted to bail to answer separate charges for violation of bookmaking statutes in Cumberland County and Passaic County.
On May 31, 1951 Link was indicted by the Bergen County grand jury for violating the gambling laws on April 24, 1950 and divers other dates at Teaneck, New Jersey.
He pleaded Non vult to this indictment on June 20, 1952, at which time the prosecutor apprised the court that the defendant had been indicted in Passaic County and in Cumberland County for 'what is tantamount to the same offense.' Link's counsel then said:
Upon the entering of the plea of Non vult in Bergen County, the indictments in Passaic County and Cumberland County were Nolle prossed.
On June 27, 1952 Link was sentenced to a jail term and a fine.
On June 24, 1952 Louise Schanals, Link's 79-year-old mother-in-law, instituted suit against the County Treasurer of Bergen County in an attempt to recover the $127,000 of seized currency, and in her answers to interrogatories in that litigation she asserted $80,000 of this money belonged to her, $27,000 to her daughter Violet Link, and $20,000 to Leo Link. The case was duly tried before a jury and a verdict of no cause of action was returned.
In her depositions Mrs. Schanals testified the cash was received by her as gifts from her husband, who died in February 1936. She did not know the amount of his annual income, but the proof in reference thereto indicated Mr. Schanals' last position paid an annual salary of $2,100. There was other evidence in reference to his financial status which made the claim of accumulating that amount of money from his income rather fantastic.
After the entry of judgment, an order was issued requiring the appellants to show cause why the currency in the possession of the county treasurer should not be forfeited 'to the sole use and gain of the County of Bergen.' The hearing came on before Superior Court Judge Leyden, who had issued the original search warrant, received the indictment handed down against Link, taken his plea, imposed sentence, and also had presided at the trial of Mrs. Schanals' action.
Both counsel agreed upon the record that the trial court was to take judicial notice of the pleadings, the testimony, the verdict and the judgment in the case of Mrs. Schanals against the county treasurer and also of the indictment against Leo Link, his plea thereto and his sentence thereon.
The interest now claimed in the money varies widely from that originally made, and it is obvious the alleged ownership heretofore asserted mirrored the consciousness of the forfeiture proceedings which would inevitably be encountered. Leo Link now contended he owned $82,000, Violet Link $20,000, while $25,000 had been assigned by all of the appellants to John E. Selser for professional services rendered and to be rendered.
At the hearing no additional proof was offered except the testimony of Violet Link, in which she attempted to establish her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State of New Jersey v. Moriarity
...and decided that on the specific facts of the case, the Government could not collaterally attack the final judgment of forfeiture in the Link proceeding from which it had withdrawn. See note 14, Lengthy study of these three opinions and of the case law on forfeitures, has convinced me that ......
-
Farley v. $168,400.97
...noted that the section speaks of moneys seized or captured 'in connection with any arrest' for a gambling violation. In State v. Link, 14 N.J. 446, 102 A.2d 609 (1954), the gambling moneys were taken from a wall safe in Link's home pursuant to a search warrant. Link had been arrested on an ......
-
Houman v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Pompton Lakes
...Albert F. Ruehl Co. v. Board of Trustees of Schools for Indust. Ed., 85 N.J.Super. 4, 203 A.2d 410 (Law Div. 1964); State v. Link, 14 N.J. 446, 102 A.2d 609 (1954). Particular words of a statute are to be made responsive to the reason and spirit of the entire enactment. Sperry & Hutchinson ......
-
Stapleton v. $2,438,110, 19287.
...has held that the arrest need not occur simultaneously with seizure for there to be a forfeiture of gambling funds. See State v. Link, 14 N.J. 446, 102 A.2d 609 (1954). It has also held that the forfeiture occurred at the time the monies were wrongfully used and not at the time of seizure. ......