Zecca v. Smith
| Decision Date | 25 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 277.,277. |
| Citation | 139 A. 423 |
| Parties | ZECCA v. SMITH, Recorder. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Olga Zecca was convicted as a disorderly person under a borough ordinance on presentation of a complaint to Duncan C. Smith, Recorder of the Borough of Rockaway, and she brings certiorari. Conviction set aside.
Argued May term, 1927, before TRENCHARD, KALISCH, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
Edward A. Walsh, of Boonton, for prosecutor.
King & Vogt, of Morristown, for respondent.
This case is before this court on a writ of certiorari. The writ brings up the record of the conviction of the prosecutor, Olga Zecca, as a disorderly person. The complaint against Olga Zecca was made by Ida Peluso. It states that Ida Peluso is informed and verily believes that on the 14th day of September, 1926, in the borough of Rockaway, one Olga Zecca, of said borough, was a disorderly person within the meaning and intent of the borough ordinance concerning drunk and disorderly persons, in that the said Olga Zecca caused a disturbance in the home of the said Ida Peluso and did use obscene language, curse, and swear. Upon presentation of the complaint to the borough recorder, a warrant was issued for Olga Zecca. She was apprehended, tried, and convicted of violating section 2 of the borough drunk and disorderly persons ordinance, in that she did cause a disturbance in the home of Ida Peluso and did use obscene language, curse, and swear. She was fined $10 and directed to pay the same and costs. A bond was given by the prosecutor and the writ of certiorari allowed to review the conviction.
It appears from the state of the case that Mrs. Zecca visited Mrs. Peluso. Besides the two women there were present, on this occasion, Steve Speronne and Joseph Shimens. The testimony of Mrs. Peluso and Shimens was to the effect that Mrs. Zecca called Mrs. Peluso a whore and bum, and applied to her other unseemly epithets. Speronne testified that Mrs. Peluso told Mrs. Zecca to get off of her property. This command was somewhat interlarded with oaths. There was a fight in which each called the other names not necessary to mention. Mrs. Zecca denied that she had used the language attributed to her. This constituted the evidence.
There are ten reasons assigned for reversal of the conviction. It seems unnecessary to consider all of these reasons. The record of the conviction does not show a violation of any ordinance or statute. Section 2 of the ordinance of the borough of Rockaway referred to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cooper, 31987.
...thing that will prevent it from being disorderly conduct as where the charge is for speaking vile and abusive language. See Zecca v. Smith, 139 A. 423, 5 N.J.Misc. 1044. I think that we should reverse the conviction.HILTON, J., being incapacitated by illness, took no...
-
State v. Cooper
...that will prevent it from being disorderly conduct as where the charge is for speaking vile and abusive language. See Zecca v. Smith, 139 A. 423, 5 N.J. Misc. 1044. I think that we should reverse the HILTON, J., being incapacitated by illness, took no part. ...
-
State v. Cooper
...... the very thing that will prevent it from being disorderly. conduct as where the charge is for speaking vile and abusive. language. See Zecca... conduct as where the charge is for speaking vile and abusive. language. See Zecca v. Smith......
-
State v. Robinson
...233, 77 N.E.2d 452; Williams v. Valdosta, 47 Ga.App. 810, 171 S.E. 553; Shreveport v. Price, 142 La. 936, 77 So. 883; Zecca v. Smith, 5 N.J.Misc. 1044, 139 A. 423. Of the miscellany of decisions on the precise question of disorderly conduct by telephonic communication, People v. Monnier, su......