State v. Lockman

• Decision Date: 05 June 1912
• Citation: 83 A. 689,83 N.J.L. 168
• Parties: STATE v. LOCKMAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

83 A. 689

83 N.J.L. 168

STATE

v. LOCKMAN.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 5, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Camden County.

William Lockman was convicted of violation of the Election Law, and brings error. Affirmed and remitted for imposition of sentence.

Argued November term, 1911, before GUMMERE, C. J., and SWAYZE and VOORHEES, JJ.

Harry C. Kramer, Albert S. Woodruff, and Floyd H. Bradley, all of Camden, and Robert H. McCarter, of Newark, for plaintiff in error.

Henry S. Scovel, Prosecutor of the Pleas, and Charles A. Wolverton, Asst. Prosecutor, both of Camden, for the State.

VOORHEES, J. The indictment under which the defendant was convicted in this case contains nine counts. The first four charge that the defendant, a judge of the board of registry and election of the First election district of the Fifth ward of Camden, at the general election in November, 1910, knowing that a person was not qualified to vote, unlawfully and knowingly received and deposited his ballot in the ballot box as such judge, knowing that the election board had not decided to receive the ballot. These first four counts differ merely in particularizing the disqualifying facts. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth counts all charge the defendant with unlawfully and knowingly aiding, counseling, and assisting Lewis Baker unlawfully and fraudulently to vote. In each of the counts, the charge is that a certain person alleging himself to be one Lewis Baker presented himself to vote. The judge charged: "Gentlemen: There are really two charges in this case for you to try. The first is practically that this defendant received a vote of a man named Lewis Baker or Lewis Baker, Jr., being an illegal voter in the precinct and ward in which he was judge of election. The other charge is that he put a vote in the box, in the ballot box, when the board stood two to two. You should keep those two charges distinct in your minds, and you can convict on both or acquit on both, or convict on one and acquit on the other." On the first charge, the defendant was found "not guilty" by the jury, and, on the second charge, he was found "guilty." Under instructions of the court, this verdict was refrained as follows: "Not guilty as to first charge—Lewis Baker, Jr., being an illegal voter. Guilty as to second charge of receiving vote of Lewis Baker, Jr., when the vote of the board stood two to two." No objection has been made to the molding of the verdict, or to the form into which it has been recast.

We therefore concern ourselves entirely with the charge upon which the defendant was convicted. The point first argued is that it was error to permit the state to inquire into the acts of the person who called himself Lewis Baker, Jr., because the indictment charged that the alleged illegal voter presented himself to vote on the name of Lewis Baker, without the addition of the suffix "Sr." or "Jr." This subject has been treated in State v. Lewis, 83 Atl. 692, decided at this present term, and is governed thereby. The objection must therefore be overruled.

The principal point made by the plaintiff in error may be thus epitomized: The indictment charges: That the defendant "did unlawfully, willfully, fraudulently, and knowingly receive and deposit in the ballot box * * * the ballot then and there offered to him * * * as judge, * * * well knowing that the board of registry * * * had not decided to receive said ballot," etc. That such acts are not specifically by statute declared to be a crime. That it is only by reference to sections 68 (C. S. p. 2099), 75 (C. S. p. 2101), and 80 (C. S. p. 2103) of the Election Law, in connection with the 197th section (C. S. p. 2137), reading as follows: "Every public officer upon whom any duty is imposed by this act who willfully or negligently violates his said duty or who neglects or willfully omits to perform the same, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor"—that a crime can be pieced out.

The charge is the unlawful depositing of the ballot, knowing that the board had not decided to receive it. Section 80 (0. S. p. 2104) provides "that in no case shall the ballot be deposited by such judge until the board of election shall have decided to receive the same." A violation of this section is an offense. A custom of violating the statute will not excuse. Section 76 (C. S. p....