Lawrence v. Stewart

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Lawrence v. Stewart

167 A. 677, 11 N.J. Misc. 650, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 150

DecidedJuly 25, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A. 677 (Lawrence v. Stewart) 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

Lawrence v. Stewart, 167 A. 677, 11 N.J. Misc. 650, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 150 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a rule for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the recorder in Hopewell township adjudging the prosecutor guilty of being the putative father of an unborn bastard child.

The case was heard before the recorder, the defendant appeared and submitted to the order by giving bond for support of the child as required by the statute, first entering a plea of non vult. All this happened in March of last year. The present rule was made in the December following. The affidavit upon which the rule was granted recites his hearing on March 16th and his conviction on the 22d, says he expected and intended to have a jury trial, and refused to plead on that ground; that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to warrant his conviction; that he was not guilty; that he believes the testimony of the complaining witness was the result of collusion between her and her father; that he believes the [651]*651recorder committed legal error by acting on an illgal complaint and warrant.

These facts do not call for allowance of the writ at this late date, nor do they call for serious discussion of reasons why it should not be allowed.

The rule is, therefore, discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a rule for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the recorder in Hopewell township adjudging the prosecutor guilty of being the putative father of an unborn bastard child.

The case was heard before the recorder, the defendant appeared and submitted to the order by giving bond for support of the child as required by the statute, first entering a plea of non vult. All this happened in March of last year. The present rule was made in the December following. The affidavit upon which the rule was granted recites his hearing on March 16th and his conviction on the 22d, says he expected and intended to have a jury trial, and refused to plead on that ground; that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to warrant his conviction; that he was not guilty; that he believes the testimony of the complaining witness was the result of collusion between her and her father; that he believes the [651]*651recorder committed legal error by acting on an illgal complaint and warrant.

These facts do not call for allowance of the writ at this late date, nor do they call for serious discussion of reasons why it should not be allowed.

The rule is, therefore, discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A. 677, 11 N.J. Misc. 650, 1933 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-stewart-nj-1933.