State v. Nixon
| Decision Date | 15 June 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 73.,73. |
| Citation | 90 A. 1102,86 N.J.L. 371 |
| Parties | STATE v. NIXON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Supreme Court.
James S. Nixon was convicted of making false returns at a primary election. From a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the conviction, he brings error. Affirmed.
The following opinion was filed in the Supreme Court:
The plaintiff in error, together with three others was convicted under an indictment charging them with fraudulent conduct as election officers at the primary election held in September, 1911. The indictment contained two counts. The first averred that the defendants did make a false, fraudulent, and incorrect return of the canvass of the votes cast at such primary election. The second count charged them with falsely counting ballots cast at that election, and making false returns in court on that counting. Nixon is the only person who prosecutes the writ of error. The case comes up under the 136th section of the Criminal Procedure Act (2 Comp. St. 1910, p. 1863).
The first reason upon which a reversal is sought is based upon the refusal of the court to quash the indictment on the motion of the defendant. The ground of the motion was that the indictment charged the defendants with "making a false return," and that this did not apprise them of what was alleged against them.
We think both counts of this indictment are good. The supplement to the General Election Law, passed October 28, 1907 (P. L. 1907, p. 697, § 3), provides that the board of registry and election in each election district of every county in this state shall include the results of such primary election in the statement which they are now required by law to transmit to the municipal clerk, and the said municipal clerk shall forthwith transmit the results to the county clerk, who shall canvass said returns, etc. From this provision it is evident that the statement of the result of the election is a return of the count of the votes. The fifth section of the act provides that "the provisions of this act shall be construed in conjunction with the provisions of the act to which this is a supplement (viz., the General Election Law, and the several supplements thereto and amendments thereof), except where inconsistent therewith." The 191st section of the General Election Law provides that, "if any member of any district board of registry and election shall, at any election, * * * willfully and designedly make or sign any false or untrue statement or certificate of the result of any such election, * * * he shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment at hard labor for any term not exceeding two years, or both." The indictment charges the offense struck at by section 3 of the supplement and section 5 by ingrafting the 191st section of the General Law into the supplement makes the offense criminal.
The next reason urged for setting aside the conviction is based upon the refusal of the trial court to direct a severance of the defendants at the trial. This application was addressed to the discretion of the court, and it is not made apparent to us that by reason of its refusal the plaintiff in error suffered any manifest wrong or injury. The conviction cannot be set aside, therefore, for this reason.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rios
...other relief justice requires.' The above rule is but declaratory of practice long settled in this State. See State v. Nixon, 86 N.J.L. 371, 90 A. 1102 (E. & A.1914); State v. Tonghanni, 96 N.J.L. 63, 114 A. 250 (Sup.Ct.1921); State v. Juliano, 103 N.J.L. 663, 138 A. 575 (E. & A.1927); Stat......
-
Wene v. Meyner
...and construed many times, notably in the cases of Woodruff v. State, 68 N.J.L. 89, 52 A. 294 (Sup.Ct.1902); State v. Nixon, 86 N.J.L. 371, 90 A. 1102 (E. & A.1914); State v. Caprio, 98 N.J.L. 13, 119 A. 81 (Sup.Ct.1922), affirmed 99 N.J.L. 292, 130 A. 377 (E. & A.1923); Petition of Clee, 11......
-
State v. Treficanto
...It is well settled in this state that a refusal of a severance is a matter of discretion, and not reviewable on error. State v. Nixon, 86 N. J. Law, 371, 372, 90 A. 1102; State v. Bossone, 88 N. J. Law, 45, 46, 95 A969; State v. Tonghanni, 96 N. J. Law, 63, 114 A. 250. Besides, the ordering......
-
State v. Dolbow
...accused have suffered injury thereby. State v. Morris, 98 N.J.Law, 621, 121 A. 290, affirmed 99 N.J.Law, 526, 124 A. 926; State, v. Nixon, 86 N.J.Law, 371, 90 A. 1102. A careful examination of the indictment as applied to the facts and the subsequent proofs satisfies us that the defendants ......