Watt v. Wallerius
| Decision Date | 12 March 1924 |
| Citation | 123 A. 723 |
| Parties | WATT v. WALLERIUS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari by Elmer Watt against Fred J. Wallerius, to review a judgment setting aside a conviction of defendant for a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1923, before TRENCHARD and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Elmer W. Romine, of Morristown, for prosecutor.
Isadore Rabinowitz, of Paterson (Rosenkrans & Rosenkrans, of Paterson, of counsel), for respondent.
The respondent was convicted by a justice of the peace of a violation of the Motor Vehicle Act (P. L. 1921, p. 643), and was fined $50, and suffered the revocation of his driver's license.
Subsequently the proceedings before the justice of the peace and the conviction were reviewed by Justice Parker under section 35 of the beforementioned act, who by his order of October 13, 1923, set aside the conviction and ordered the return to respondent the amount of the fine paid, $50, and of the costs paid to the justice of the peace. This order was made upon the ground that no complaint in writing had been made against respondent of the violation of any of the provisions of the aforesaid act.
By this writ of certiorari the order of Justice Parker setting aside the conviction is brought up for review. Five reasons are assigned by the prosecutor why the order under review should be set aside, but they may all be summed up in this one, "because section 31, par. 1, c. 208, P. L 1921, provides in cases, such as the one now before the court, that no written complaint need be made."
The respondent was arrested by prosecutor, a police officer, who witnessed the alleged violation, and taken without warrant or other process before the justice of the peace, who, upon the verbal oath of the officer, issued a warrant, charging respondent with the violation of section 16 of the act, and then proceeded to try the matter, found respondent guilty, and inflicted the penalty hereinbefore referred to.
The Motor Vehicle Act is a penal statute, and is therefore quasi criminal in character. State Board, etc., v. McOloskey, 87 N. J. Law, 470-476, 94 Atl. 411.
At common law all proceedings of a criminal or quasi criminal nature, except contempts, were required to be initiated by written complaints.
This is so concededly so and has always been so fixedly the practice in this state as not to be open to question nor require the citation of any authority for its support. And such would therefore be the requirement, unless the contrary clearly appeared by specific legislative authority contained in the act in question. Such is not the case. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Laird
...McCloskey, 87 N.J.L. 470, 476, 94 A. 411 (Sup.Ct.1915); State v. Rodgers, 91 N.J.L. 212, 102 A. 433 (E. & A.1917); Watt v. Wallerius, 99 N.J.L. 370, 123 A. 723 (Sup.Ct.1924); State v. Rosenblum, 100 N.J.L. 240, 126 A. 852 (Sup.Ct.1924), affirmed 102 N.J.L. 125, 130 A. 614 (E. & A.1925); Sta......
-
State v. Rowe
...is a penal statute; it is quasi criminal in its nature. State Board v. McCloskey, 87 N.J.Law, 470, 476, 94 A. 411; Watt v. Wallerius, 99 N.J.Law, 370, 371, 123 A. 723. Conceding but not so deciding that the complaint in a quasi judicial criminal procedure must, in exactness, measure up to a......
-
State v. McCarthy
...been described as quasi-criminal. Vide, State v. Hunter, 4 N.J.Super. 531, 537, 68 A.2d 274 (App.Div.1949); Watt v. Wallerius, 99 N.J.L. 370, 371, 123 A. 723 (Sup.Ct.1924); Kruttschnitt v. Hagaman, 128 N.J.L. 246, 250, 25 A.2d 200 It is of cogent significance to notice that one who is found......
-
State v. Whitaker
...should set forth which separate offense was committed. Preusser v. Cass, 54 N. J. Law, 532, 534, 535, 24 A. 480; Watt v. Wallerius, 99 N. J. Law, 370, 372, 123 A. 723; State v D'Aloia, 146 A. 426, 2 N. J. Misc. R. 1164. If the complaint is definite and specific, it will suffice if the judgm......