State v. Meola, s. A--541
| Decision Date | 20 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | A--542,Nos. A--541,s. A--541 |
| Citation | 70 A.2d 771,6 N.J.Super. 214 |
| Parties | STATE v. MEOLA et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Edward Schoen, Jr., Newark, argued the cause for the State (Duane E. Minard, Jr., Essex County Prosecutor, Newark, attorney; C. William Caruso, Legal Assistant Prosecutor, Newark).
Charles A. Stanziale, Newark, argued the cause for appellant Meola (Alexander Avidan, Newark, on the brief).
Samuel I. Kessler, Newark, argued the cause for appellants Krubit, Rosenson and Silverman (Kessler & Kessler and Max L. Rosenstein, Newark, attorneys).
Before Judges JACOBS, DONGES and BIGELOW.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BIGELOW, J.A.D.
The four appellants were convicted of bookmaking. The evidence was convincing that someone was engaged in bookmaking in the building at 317 Frelinghuysen Avenue, Newark; the question was whether the appellants, or any of them, were the guilty parties.
At the Frelinghuysen Avenue address is a one-story, brick building, 34 feet front by 150 feet deep, and beside it an alleyway. The rear of the building, the greater part of it, is used as a garage. The front part consists of three rooms or offices, the main one reached through the front door; a small room, about 8 by 10 feet, to the right of it; and further to the rear, between the front rooms and the garage, is the third. It was in that room that the bookmaking activities took place. The premises were owned by two brothers named Epstein, and were leased by them at $365 a month to the Doehler Food Company, or to William Doehler, trading under that name. Doehler seems also to have been known as Pete Dolus. Arthur Meola, who is one of the defendants, was engaged in the trucking business and was the sub-tenant of the small front office and of space in the garage for his truck. Six police officers raided the building early in the afternoon of Friday, July 2, 1948. They found no one in the office part of the structure, but in the middle room they did find the usual bookmaking paraphernalia, including many memranda sheets, some bearing the date of the raid. Phones were ringing and messages coming over the wires from patrons to place their bets. We might note here that the Telephone Company, on order of Doehler, had installed three instruments with two trunk wires. And for Meola they had put one telephone in his office. The police found another telephone instrument, disconnected, in the drawer of a cabinet in the middle room. They also found in the same room a telephone (of which the Telephone Company had no record) connected with one of the other phones--which one is not clear. Whether messages were received by the police over the Meola phone is also not clear. One of the police officers admitted on cross-examination that he believed fingerprints were taken. Since the State offered no proof in regard to them, we may assume that no fingerprints of the defendants were found. Likewise, we may assume that none of the memoranda of bets, etc., were in the handwriting of any of the defendants. What then was the evidence that connected the defendants with the bookmaking?
Let us first take the case against Meola: The day of the raid, about half an hour after the police had taken possession, they noticed Meola entering the garage. They brought him into the front part of the building and asked, 'Are you the proprietor here?' and he answered in the affirmative. But he was the proprietor of the Trucking Company, and his motor truck was in the garage that day. Lieutenant Falb testified that Meola said, 'that he got $75 a week for renting the place and that he done the wiring on that telephone set up in this back room where this was being conducted'; that he said either the defendant Rosenson or the defendant Silverman paid him the money. Falb added that he did not believe Meola had done the wiring. Perhaps he detected sarcasm in Meola's statement, or perhaps the wiring job looked too professional.
Next for the case against the defendant Krubit. When the police arrived at 317 Frelinghuysen Avenue, three of them broke in the front door and three--Gill, Schelling and McCormack--hurried down the alley. As they reached the garage, an automobile was slowly backing out into the alley. It was Krubit's car and he was driving it, and with him were Rosenson and Silverman, one seated beside Krubit and one in the back seat. They had extra suits and other clothing in the car, as if they were going on a journey. Detective McCormack sprang...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Seaman
...the trial court. Defendant having failed to raise these issues below, we might well decline to consider them. State v. Meola, 6 N.J.Super. 214, 219, 70 A.2d 771 (App.Div.1950); State v. Kowalczyk, 3 N.J. 51, 55, 68 A.2d 835 (Sup.Ct.1949). However, both parties having argued them extensively......
-
State v. Carrano, A--323
...admissibility of evidence of this kind, has been inferentially recognized by our courts, in cases of this nature. State v. Meola, 6 N.J.Super. 214, 70 A.2d 771 (App.Div.1950).' We entertain some doubt as to whether the State established that the charred remnants of racing forms found outsid......
-
State v. Craig, A--276
...to raise the issue on appeal, unless it appears that he suffered manifest wrong or injury thereby. We find none. State v. Meola, 6 N.J.Super. 214, 219, 70 A.2d 771; (App.Div.1950). While not called upon to decide the question, we are of the opinion that in view of R. 2:7--3, it is better pr......
-
State v. O'Donnell, A--296
...admissibility of evidence of this kind, has been inferentially recognized by our courts, in cases of this nature. State v. Meola, 6 N.J.Super. 214, 70 A.2d 771 (App.Div.1950). The State has adduced sufficient evidence to establish a Prima facie case against the defendant, O'Donnell. The pro......