Goldshine v. State

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Goldshine v. State

168 A. 774, 11 N.J. Misc. 917, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 56

DecidedOctober 23, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A. 774 (Goldshine v. State) 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

Goldshine v. State, 168 A. 774, 11 N.J. Misc. 917, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 56 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The case as exhibited on the papers before us is very incomplete, but we gather that the prosecutors were convicted as disorderly persons, i. e., common thieves attending a place of amusement for an unlawful purpose. Disorderly Persons act, section 6. That the conviction was before a Police Court of the city of Newark; that they procured a summary review of the conviction by Judge Hartshorne, of the Court of Common Pleas, by virtue of some such statute as section 39 of the Disorderly act (Comp. Stat., p. 1937), or the act of 1895, relating to Police Courts. Comp. Stat., p. 3995, pi. 14. The precise act is unimportant. We gather further that Judge Hartshorne sustained the conviction, and we are asked to review his action on certiorari, as of course this court has the right to do. Newark v. Kazinski, 86 N. J. L. 59; 90 Atl. Rep. 1016. To that end we have examined the affidavit and briefs submitted (there was no oral argument) and conclude that prosecutors have not shown a case reasonably calling for the interposition of this court.

Allocatur is therefore denied.

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

Per Curiam.

The case as exhibited on the papers before us is very incomplete, but we gather that the prosecutors were convicted as disorderly persons, i. e., common thieves attending a place of amusement for an unlawful purpose. Disorderly Persons act, section 6. That the conviction was before a Police Court of the city of Newark; that they procured a summary review of the conviction by Judge Hartshorne, of the Court of Common Pleas, by virtue of some such statute as section 39 of the Disorderly act (Comp. Stat., p. 1937), or the act of 1895, relating to Police Courts. Comp. Stat., p. 3995, pi. 14. The precise act is unimportant. We gather further that Judge Hartshorne sustained the conviction, and we are asked to review his action on certiorari, as of course this court has the right to do. Newark v. Kazinski, 86 N. J. L. 59; 90 Atl. Rep. 1016. To that end we have examined the affidavit and briefs submitted (there was no oral argument) and conclude that prosecutors have not shown a case reasonably calling for the interposition of this court.

Allocatur is therefore denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A. 774, 11 N.J. Misc. 917, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldshine-v-state-nj-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack