State v. Staw

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation116 A. 425
PartiesSTATE v. STAW (two cases).
Decision Date02 February 1922

Error to Supreme Court.

Benjamin Staw and Morris Staw were convicted of assault and battery, and they bring error. Affirmed.

On writ of error to the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:

"Benjamin Staw was indicted by the grand jury of Essex county for assault and battery and atrocious assault and battery upon Max Wechsler. A like indictment was found against Morris Staw upon the complaint of Max 01-shan. The two indictments arose out of an affray occurring at the time of the vacation by the Staws of a portion of building in Newark owned by Wechsler and Olshan, and were tried together in the court of general quarter session of Essex county. Each of the Staws was convicted of assault and battery. From the judgments entered on these convictions each has taken a writ of error to this court. The cases were argued together, and will he decided together, as each involves the same question.

"The first reason for reversal is the exclusion by the trial court of the testimony of one Berlowitz, as to occurrences between the complaining witnesses and some truckmen on the day prior to the date of the alleged assault and battery. Before this witness was called the Staws had testified, and" denied that they had committed the assault and battery upon the complaining witnesses. Under the circumstances the trial court said there was no question of self-defense or justification involved, and excluded the evidence. We consider this ruling, for the reasons given, proper. It was immaterial whether or not on the preceding day there was bad blood between the complaining witnesses and the truckman.

"The second reason for reversal is addressed to a portion of the charge of the trial court in which the court said: A battery is the actual doing of an unlawful hurt, however slight, to another.' It is contended that under this statement the jury would have been justified in finding the defendants guilty if they hod only hurt the feelings of the complaining witnesses. The portion of the charge from which the above sentence is taken is as follows:

"'An assault is an attempt or offer with unlawful force or violence to do a corporeal hurt or physical injury to another. A battery is the actual doing of any unlawful hurt, however slight, to another. To constitute the offenses of simple assault and battery there must be two elements, the physical injury or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Blechman.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 26 d4 Dezembro d4 1946
    ...State v. Johnson, 90 N.J.L. 21, 100 A. 242, affirmed 91 N.J.L. 611, 104 A. 593; State v. Barone, 96 N.J.L. 417, 115 A. 668; State v. Staw, 97 N.J.L. 349, 116 A. 425; State v. Larsen, 105 N.J.L. 266, 144 A. 875; State v. Yevchak, 130 N.J.L. 584, 34 A.2d 231. But it is also said that a correc......
  • State v. Wilding, 6361
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 19 d6 Dezembro d6 1936
    ...... battery, which always includes an assault; hence the. two terms are commonly combined in the term 'assault and. battery.' (McGlone v. Hauger, 56 Ind.App. 243,. 104 N.E. 116, 121; Harris v. State, 15 Okla. Crim. 369, [57 Idaho 152] 177 P. 122, 123; State v. Staw,. 97 N.J.L. 349, 116 A. 425; State v. Lichter, 30 Del. 119, 7 Boyce (Del.), 119, 102 A. 529, 530; Anderson v. Crawford, (C. C. A.) 265 F. 504, 506; Johnson v. Sampson, 167 Minn. 203, 208 N.W. 814, 815, 46 A. L. R. 772.). . . "As. to acts constituting assault and battery, see Smith ......
  • State v. Saulnier
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 19 d2 Junho d2 1973
    ...Zelichowski, 52 N.J. 377, 383--385, 245 A.2d 351 (1968); State v. Midgeley, 15 N.J. 574, 579, 105 A.2d 844 (1954); State v. Staw, 97 N.J.L. 349, 350, 116 A. 425 (E. & A. 1922); Cf. State v. Newman, 128 N.J.L. 82, 84, 24 A.2d 206 (Sup.Ct.1942); State v. Johnson, 30 N.J.L. 185, 186--187 (Sup.......
  • State v. Capawanna
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 20 d2 Abril d2 1937
    ...our Court of Errors and Appeals has approved this statement: "An atrocious assault and battery is by maiming and wounding." State v. Staw, 97 N.J.Law, 349, 116 A. 425; also cf. State v. Lambertino, 180 A. 426, 13 N.J.Misc. There is nothing in the statute, supra, requiring that the maiming o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT