State v. State
| Decision Date | 08 November 1894 |
| Citation | 57 N.J.L. 324,30 A. 541 |
| Parties | STATE (MADDEN et al., Prosecutors) v. STATE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to court of oyer and terminer.
John T. Madden and others were indicted for conspiracy. A motion to quash the indictment was denied by the court of oyer and terminer, and defendants renew their motion by writ of certiorari. Motion denied.
The indictment, in substance, contains the following averments: That the prosecutors of this writ, being then and there street and water commissioners of Jersey City, and then and there constituting and composing and acting as the board of street and water commissioners of Jersey City, did conspire and bind themselves together by agreement to cheat and defraud Jersey City of its moneys, by willfully and corruptly purchasing from divers persons, for and on behalf of Jersey City, large quantities of supplies at prices greatly in excess of the true value thereof, and by paying for the same, and causing the same to be paid for, out of the moneys of Jersey City, at greatly excessive, exorbitant, and fraudulent prices, and by willfully and corruptly making, and causing to be made, fraudulent contracts with divers persons for and on behalf of Jersey City, for work, labor, services, and supplies to be done for and furnished to Jersey City, whereby Jersey City was obligated to pay, and did pay, $20,000 over and above the value of such work and supplies, and by willfully and corruptly paying, and causing to be paid, large sums for salaries to persons who had rendered no services to Jersey City, whereby Jersey City was cheated of a large sum of money. Then follows the allegation that, in execution of the premises and in pursuance of said conspiracy the indicted persons did certain things, some of which will be noticed in the opinion.
Argued June term, 1894, before DIXON, REED, and ABBETT, JJ.
Charles Thompson and C. L. Corbin, for the motion.
C. H. Winfield, opposed.
REED, J. (after stating the facts). The first line of attack upon the above indictment is that it fails to show that) the combination set out was corrupt. It is premised that the indictment does not merely set out a conspiracy to cheat generally, but that it charges a conspiracy to cheat by the use of certain specified devices, and in certain ways specially named. From this premise it is said that the scope of the conspiracy is not only limited by this particularization of the method by which it was to be executed, but that the character of the devices set out must exhibit a corrupt mind in the conspirators. This contention cannot be successful. It is true, as a matter of course, that the combination, to be criminal, must appear on the face of the indictment to have been willful and corrupt. But I am unable to conceive how corruption can be imputed more specifically than it is in the indictment now under review. The imputation is that the parties charged, willfully and corruptly, conspired to cheat the city by paying out the city's moneys to persons for work never performed. The corrupt intent is imputed in the charge of the existence of a corrupt confederation, and in the statement that its purpose was to cheat the city. Indeed, after the employment of this language, any statement of the methods by which the cheat was to be executed was unnecessary. State v. Young, 37 N. J. Law, 184. In Wood v. State, 47 N. J. Law, 461, 1 Atl. 509, a case very much relied on as a decision which struck at the validity of the present indictment, it was admitted that this generality of charging a conspiracy was sufficient. In that case there was no charge of the existence of a corrupt confederation whatever; nor was there a charge that the object of the confederation was to cheat the county of Camden. In such an absence of any general charge of a corrupt combination to cheat, it was essential that the facts contained in the statement of the agreement and its character, as exhibited by the scheme by which it was to be carried into execution, should show a corrupt purpose. It was because of the failure of the indictment in that case to do this that it was quashed. It is perceived that the indictment in that case differed from the one in this case, in that important particular that we here have a general charge of a corrupt confederation, the purpose of which was to cheat the public. Now, if it appeared in that part of the present indictment which discloses the means by which the cheat was to be accomplished that there could be no possible intent to cheat...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ellenstein
...and particular statement of the means sufficient to meet the requirements of Wood v. State, 47 N.J.L. 461, 1 A. 509; Madden v. State, 57 N.J.L. 324, 30 A. 541; State v. Borg, 152 A. 788, 9 N.J.Misc. 59, and the remaining cases of this jurisdiction cited by defendants. If an indictment prese......
-
State v. John P. Callaghan Co.
...the means agreed upon by the conspirators. State v. Ellenstein, 121 N.J.L. 304, 314, 2 A.2d 454 (Sup.Ct. 1938); Madden v. State, 57 N.J.L. 324, 30 A. 541 (Sup.Ct. 1894); State v. Young, 37 N.J.L. 184, 187 (Sup.Ct. 1874). Young, supra, is directly in point. There, the defendants were charged......
-
State v. Borg
...state of a large sum of money should not be lightly made nor vaguely couched. In State v. Young, 37 N. J. Law, 184, and Madden v. State, 57 N. J. Law, 324, 30 A. 541, indictments against public officials for conspiracy at common law were sustained as sufficient, and upon these two cases the......
-
State v. D'auria.
...to cheat and defraud, of similar generality. See State v. Micone, 134 N.J.L. 177, 46 A.2d 663 (Sup.Ct.1946); Madden v. State, 57 N.J.L. 324, 326, 30 A. 541 (Sup.Ct.1894); State v. Young and Stainsby, 37 N.J.L. 184, 187 (Sup.Ct.1874). The judgment is ...