State v. Regan
| Decision Date | 11 November 1901 |
| Citation | 67 N.J.L. 106,50 A. 591 |
| Parties | STATE v. REGAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by the state, on the prosecution of Cornelius Regan and Daniel Regan, to review a conviction of being disorderly persons. Conviction set aside.
Argued June term, 1901, before VAN SYCKEL, FORT, and GARRETSON, JJ.
Wheaton Berault and Howard Carrow, for prosecutors.
Louis H. Miller, for the State.
The complaint in this case is evidently drawn under section 3 of the act concerning disorderly persons (Revision 1898; Laws 1898, p. 943). The complaint is against the defendants jointly, and charges two offenses, upon conviction for either of which the defendants could be adjudged disorderly persons. The conviction in the record is as follows: "Upon the law and testimony, I convicted Daniel Regan and Cornelius Regan of being guilty of being disorderly persons as charged." The defendants were not charged with being disorderly persons, nor could they be. The charge against them was for having (1) "uttered loud, offensive, and indecent remarks * * * concerning the complainant"; and (2) "that they did obstruct and interfere with deponent, he being then and there lawfully upon the street." By section 40 of the act concerning disorderly persons it is expressly provided that "in all cases when any person is convicted of having violated any of the provisions of this act" it shall be lawful for the magistrate to sentence to fine or imprisonment. The conviction must be for some offense mentioned in the act. Being a disorderly person is not an offense. A person must first be convicted of violating some provision of the act before he can, in the language of the act, be "deemed and adjudged a disorderly person."
The record does not show that the defendants, or either of them, were convicted of the offense charged, and the proceedings will be set aside, but without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osler v. Walton
... ... A dictum of like purport in Wisconsin has been repudiated by the supreme court of that state (Wilson v. Young, 31 Wis. 574), and the latest decision is in full accord with the view of the trial justice in the present cause (Corcoran v ... ...
-
State v. D'Aloia
...such offense. "The conviction must be for some offense mentioned in the Act. Being a disorderly person is not an offense." State v. Regan, 67 N. J. Law, 106, 50 A. 591. As to the second specification, to wit, that he was guilty "of violating section 3 of said statute, an act concerning diso......
-
Breisia v. Court of Common Pleas in and for Hudson County
...2 o'clock in the afternoon of the day in question. A conviction under the act must be for some offense under the statute. State v. Regan, 67 N. J. Law, 106, 50 A. 591. The prosecutor challenges the The question before us is whether wandering abroad on a public street and not giving a good a......