State v. Seifert
| Decision Date | 17 November 1913 |
| Citation | 88 A. 947,85 N.J.L. 104 |
| Parties | STATE v. SEIFERT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Court of Quarter Sessions, Warren County.
Harvey A. Seifert was convicted of assault and battery, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued June term, 1913, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and KALISCH, JJ.
George A. Angle, of Belvidere, and O. D. McConnel, of Phillipsburg, for plaintiff in error.
William A. Stryker, of Washington, N. J., Prosecutor of the Pleas, for the State.
PARKER, J. Plaintiff in error was convicted of assault and battery. The occurrences out of which the conviction resulted took place at a meeting of the borough council of the borough of Alpha. Defendant Seifert was mayor of the borough, and one Veit one of the councilmen. There was no borough hall, and by invitation and license of the mayor the council meetings were habitually held in his private offices, consisting of two rooms connected by folding doors. At a council meeting a dispute took place over a bill presented for payment, and a recess was ordered so that the clerk could go and look up some papers that were required. During the recess the dispute continued, and culminated in Veit applying opprobrious personal epithets to the mayor, who ordered him to leave the office, and on his refusal went to the back room and took an unloaded revolver out of the desk, returned, and seized Viet by the lapel of his coat, flourished or otherwise displayed the revolver, and said, "Will you get out?" or, "Now, will you get out?" at which point other members of the council intervened and the incident terminated. These facts, except perhaps as to some minor and immaterial details, were absolutely undisputed and appeared in the evidence on both sides. The court charged that Veit's language was not a sufficient provocation for an assault and battery; that defendant's acts constituted such assault and battery; and in effect that, so long as the council remained in session, defendant was not entitled, by virtue of his ownership of the premises, to order Veit out of the room and could hot justify the assault because he refused to go. The jury were told that it was their duty to find him guilty, and so found.
The case comes here on strict bill of exceptions as well as under section 136 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1898. The assignments of error and the cause for reversal argued under the first point of the brief relate to the position taken by the court that, until the council meeting broke up in some way, defendant was not entitled to order Veit out. We think this proposition was correct. Whether the judge was right in holding, as he did, that the mayor might have himself adjourned the meeting and then ordered Veit out, it is unnecessary to decide, as this did not take place and the defendant was not harmed. But the mayor's invitation for the council to meet at his office was a license to the council as a body, and not to its members as individuals. Assuming that the mayor was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ellenstein
...v. Hauptmann, 115 NJ.L. 412, at page 429, et seq., 180 A. 809, for a review of the cases and a restatement of the rule. State v. Seifert, 85 NJ.L. 104, 88 A. 947, affirmed 86 N.J.L. 706, 92 A. 345, contains perhaps the most positive judicial comment of any of the criminal charges taken up o......
-
State v. Maier, A--46
...the Crown, 110; 3 Blackstone's Commentaries, 120; 4 Ibid. 216. An essential element is an intent to do bodily harm. State v. Seifert, 85 N.J.L. 104, 88 A. 947 (Sup.Ct.1913); Rex v. Gill, 1 Strange 190; Com v. Eyre, 1 Serg. & R. 347; Tuberville v. Savage, 1 Mod. 3; Com. v. Adams, 114 Mass. 3......
-
State v. Woodworth
...to determine whether the trial judge erred as regards the issue framed upon the count charging assault and battery. Compare State v. Seifert, 85 N.J.L. 104, 88 A. 947, affirmed 86 N.J.L. 706, 92 A. 345. For, while the evidence overwhelmingly established that Brown was a conscious actor in t......
-
State v. Greely
...precept thus imparted is reversible error when it is such as fails to leave the jury entirely free to reject it. See State v. Seifert, 85 N.J.L. 104, 88 A. 947 (Sup.Ct.1913), affirmed 86 N.J.L. 706, 92 A. 345 (E. & A.1914), and State v. Swan, 130 N.J.L. 372, 32 A.2d 843 (E. & A.1943). As st......