State v. Rosenblum

• Decision Date: 21 October 1925
• Citation: 130 A. 614
• Parties: STATE v. ROSENBLUM.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 A. 614

STATE

v. ROSENBLUM.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 21, 1925.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Isaac Rosenblum was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and conviction was affirmed on appeal to court of common pleas and in Supreme Court on certiorari (126 A. 852), from which he appeals. Affirmed.

Harry Heher, of Trenton, for appellant.

Harvey T. Satterthwaite, of Trenton, for respondent.

GUMMERE, C. J. Isaac Rosenblum, the appellant, was convicted in the recorder's court of the township of Lawrence, in the county of Mercer, of a violation of section 14, item 3, of the statute of 1921 (P. L. 643), which prohibits the driving of a motor vehicle by any person while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and makes, such act punishable by imprisonment. He appealed from this conviction to the court of common pleas of the county, and, when the case was called, he moved a dismissal for irregularities appearing in the complaint made before the recorder. The motion was refused, and the court thereupon, pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by section 28 of the statute, proceeded to a trial upon the merits. This trial resulted in an affirmance of his conviction upon the charge laid against him in the recorder's court. He then applied to the Supreme Court for, and was allowed, a writ of certiorari to review the conviction had against him in the court of common pleas. Upon the hearing had upon the return of the writ, the Supreme Court affirmed that conviction for reasons set forth, in detail, in an opinion promulgated by that tribunal. The judgment of affirmance is now before us for review.

We concur in the conclusions expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court on the meritorious questions involved, and are content to adopt that opinion as our own, except as hereinafter indicated.

The Supreme Court, after pointing out that the jurisdiction conferred by the statute upon the court of common pleas is special, and that the procedure in that court is summary, expressed the view, as we understand the opinion, that, should it appear to that court, upon the face of the complaint made before the magistrate, that the latter had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter complained of, or if it should appear that the magistrate had not obtained jurisdiction of the person of the party against whom the complaint had been lodged, the latter not appearing voluntarily, and going to trial under protest, the appellate tribunal should forthwith, upon the...