In Re Jibb

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

In Re Jibb

197 A. 12, 123 N.J. Eq. 251, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 656

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedJanuary 26, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 197 A. 12 (In Re Jibb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Jibb, 197 A. 12, 123 N.J. Eq. 251, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 656 (N.J. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

George E. Stupalsky appeals from a determination in the court of chancery that he was guilty of contempt of that court. The proceedings for contempt were instituted October 33d, 1936, and the finding was that the contempt consisted of a false affidavit taken September 8th, 1934, to be used in a chancery proceeding then pending.

*252 The false affidavit was not made in the presence of the court and was an offense against organized society and like other criminal offenses raised an issue between the public and the accused. It was, therefore, a criminal contempt. Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 300; In re Hendricks, 113 N. J. Eq. 93. The perjury was committed when the affidavit was sworn to and, as before indicated, the perjury was not committed in the presence of the court.

There was a right of appeal pursuant to P. L. 1909 p. 270; Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co., supra. The statute was subsequent to the decision of this court in Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 377.

Prosecutions for the offense of perjury are barred in this state unless the indictment is found within two years from the time the offense was committed. 2 Gomp. Stat. p. 1870 § 152. By analogy the court of chancery should not have adjudged the appellant in contempt when no steps were taken to prosecute him for the wrong done within two years after the act was committed. The rule laid down in Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, is applicable. “The power to punish any contempt must have some limit in time, and in defining that limit we should have regard to what has been the policy of the law from the foundation of the government.” By analogy in this state, if not by enactment, the limit is two years.

The order adjudging the appellant in contempt will be set aside.

For affirmance- — None.

For reversal — The Chibe-Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodiwe, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 14.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

George E. Stupalsky appeals from a determination in the court of chancery that he was guilty of contempt of that court. The proceedings for contempt were instituted October 33d, 1936, and the finding was that the contempt consisted of a false affidavit taken September 8th, 1934, to be used in a chancery proceeding then pending.

*252 The false affidavit was not made in the presence of the court and was an offense against organized society and like other criminal offenses raised an issue between the public and the accused. It was, therefore, a criminal contempt. Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co., 83 N. J. Eq. 300; In re Hendricks, 113 N. J. Eq. 93. The perjury was committed when the affidavit was sworn to and, as before indicated, the perjury was not committed in the presence of the court.

There was a right of appeal pursuant to P. L. 1909 p. 270; Staley v. South Jersey Realty Co., supra. The statute was subsequent to the decision of this court in Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 377.

Prosecutions for the offense of perjury are barred in this state unless the indictment is found within two years from the time the offense was committed. 2 Gomp. Stat. p. 1870 § 152. By analogy the court of chancery should not have adjudged the appellant in contempt when no steps were taken to prosecute him for the wrong done within two years after the act was committed. The rule laid down in Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, is applicable. “The power to punish any contempt must have some limit in time, and in defining that limit we should have regard to what has been the policy of the law from the foundation of the government.” By analogy in this state, if not by enactment, the limit is two years.

The order adjudging the appellant in contempt will be set aside.

For affirmance- — None.

For reversal — The Chibe-Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodiwe, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 14.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A. 12, 123 N.J. Eq. 251, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jibb-njsuperctappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack