State v. Mills

• Decision Date: 25 February 1805
• Citation: 32 A. 7,57 N.J.L. 574
• Parties: STATE (STAFFORD, Prosecutor) v. MILLS et al. (two cases).
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

32 A. 7

57 N.J.L. 574

STATE (STAFFORD, Prosecutor)

v. MILLS et al. (two cases).

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 25, 1805.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Two proceedings by certiorari on the prosecution of Charles F. Stafford against William S. Mills and another to review judgments of a justice of the peace. Judgments of justice affirmed.

Argued November term, 1894, before DIXON, MAGIE, and LIPPINCOTT, JJ.

A. E. Stockwell and Linton Satterthwaie, for prosecutor.

W. D. Holt, John Caminade, and John T. Temple, for defendants.

LIPPINCOTT, J. These causes are in this court on certiorari for review of the judgments therein of William S. Mills, Esq., one of the justices of the peace of the county of Mercer. Two writs of attachment were issued against Charles F. Stafford, the prosecutor, in suits in which Michael Gaiser and Lawrence Farrell were plaintiffs, respectively, on the ground that Stafford was an absconding debtor. Motions were made on affidavits before the justices to quash these writs, which motions were denied. These writs are to review the judgment of the justice on this motion to quash. The affidavit in each case, upon which the writ of attachment was issued, states that the affiant verily believes that Stafford absconds from his creditors, and that he was not, to the knowledge or belief of the affiant, resident in this state at that time. The affidavits of the prosecutor, the defendant, against whom the attachments were issued upon which the motions to quash were made, were to the effect that the prosecutor was not an absconding debtor, and that he was at the time of the issue and service of the writs a resident of this state. The hearing on these motions before the justice was upon the same facts as in the case of Stafford v. Mills (decided at the present term of this court) 31 Atl. 1023. The justice having certified that he was unable to make return of the facts before him on the motion to quash, he having made no memoranda of the same, rules were granted in all the causes to take evidence of the facts appearing before the justice, to be used on the argument of these writs of certiorari. The evidence under these rules, and the facts, are now before this court, and are the same as in the case to which reference has been made. In that case the question was whether, at the time of the issuance and service of the writ of attachment, Stafford was a nonresident debtor, and this court decided that he was not, but that at the time he was a resident of this state, and therefore reversed the holding of the justice on the motion to quash. The proceedings in the Cases of Gaiser and Farrell were against Stafford as an absconding debtor, and in this respect differ from the Case of Mills, which was against him as a nonresident debtor. In summarizing the evidence the court finds the facts to be that before the issuance of these writs of attachment, on December 7 and December 9, 1893, Stafford had been the tenant of Michael Gaiser, one of the defendants herein, conducting a billiard saloon adjoining and connected with the barroom of Gaiser. He was indebted to Gaiser for quite large arrears of rent for the billiard room and for $100 for money Gaiser had been obliged to pay for him as an indorser of his note. Gaiser was pressing him for payment. He also was indebted to Farrell. It is in proof, undisputed, that for about two weeks prior to December 6, 1893, he had absented himself from the business place at this billiard room, and left his brother and a boy in charge. He was very little at his place during this time, if he was there at all. It was given out by his brother that he was sick at his wife's house in Philadelphia. The facts appear to be that he was in his own house in Lamberton street, or at his brother's house in Center street, where he lived after he gave up his own house in Lamberton street. On December 6, 1893, Gaiser issued a distraint against the personal property of the prosecutor, in his billiard room. On that day, or the days following, Stafford appears to have been mostly in his house in Lamberton street, packing up his household goods to be sent to Philadelphia, to his wife, who kept and had for a long time previous kept a boarding house in that city, but he addressed the goods when packed, and sent them, to an entirely different person, and to an address not that of his wife. He was sought for at his residence, and was not found there. From the evidence it can be gathered that he was there, but concealed from his creditors. The bell of his residence was rung, but no answer was received. From the evidence in the case the conclusion is that he was in Trenton most of the time, but avoiding his creditors and concealing himself. He undoubtedly was a portion of the time in Philadelphia at his wife's house, but with no idea of taking up his residence there. After breaking up, as the evidence shows he did, his residence in Lamberton street, some time about December 6th to 8th, he engaged board at his brother's house in Center street, and lived there, but it is concluded that he concealed that fact from the public and from those who had claims against him. The constable who was required to serve the statutory notice of the distraint was...