Edwards v. Regan

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Edwards v. Regan

128 A. 797, 3 N.J. Misc. 476, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 192

DecidedMay 6, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A. 797 (Edwards v. Regan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. Regan, 128 A. 797, 3 N.J. Misc. 476, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 192 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cuexam. '

The ground of this application is that counsel was unable to procure a return to this writ from the judge of the District Court, although many months elapsed. We are unable to see but that if he had followed the practice usual in such cases, a return could readily have been procured. If necessary, counsel owed it to his client, whatever the consequences, to go to the extent of applying to this court to rule the judge to make return. But apart from this, we are satisfied that proper diligence would have secured a return long before this. The duty of prosecutor in this regard is laid down in the old cases of Anonymous, 1 Penn. 234; Voorheis v. Kerns, 2 Id. 703; Smith v. Somers, 1 Harr. 456, and from the facts stated to us by counsel of prosecutor in the case at bar it is evident that this duty was not performed.

The rule will be discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cuexam. '

The ground of this application is that counsel was unable to procure a return to this writ from the judge of the District Court, although many months elapsed. We are unable to see but that if he had followed the practice usual in such cases, a return could readily have been procured. If necessary, counsel owed it to his client, whatever the consequences, to go to the extent of applying to this court to rule the judge to make return. But apart from this, we are satisfied that proper diligence would have secured a return long before this. The duty of prosecutor in this regard is laid down in the old cases of Anonymous, 1 Penn. 234; Voorheis v. Kerns, 2 Id. 703; Smith v. Somers, 1 Harr. 456, and from the facts stated to us by counsel of prosecutor in the case at bar it is evident that this duty was not performed.

The rule will be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A. 797, 3 N.J. Misc. 476, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-regan-nj-1925.