State Ex Rel. Favorito v. Flannagan

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State Ex Rel. Favorito v. Flannagan

4 A.2d 519, 122 N.J.L. 179, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 215

DecidedMarch 2, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.2d 519 (State Ex Rel. Favorito v. Flannagan) 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

State Ex Rel. Favorito v. Flannagan, 4 A.2d 519, 122 N.J.L. 179, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 215 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This matter is before us on a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to review an order of the respondents after trial of an indictment charging the prosecutors with committing the crime of conspiracy, of which there was a conviction.

The order in question was made upon motion to set aside the verdict and for the entry of one of not guilty, on the contention that the prosecutors were husband and wife; at law, one person and therefore incapable of committing the crime of conspiracy.

We conclude that a writ should not issue for the reason that the trial judge, the respondent, by his order in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial has taken every step necessary for the protection of the rights of the prosecutors to the end that they may take such steps as might he deemed necessary for the proper disposition of the case.

The rule is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This matter is before us on a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue to review an order of the respondents after trial of an indictment charging the prosecutors with committing the crime of conspiracy, of which there was a conviction.

The order in question was made upon motion to set aside the verdict and for the entry of one of not guilty, on the contention that the prosecutors were husband and wife; at law, one person and therefore incapable of committing the crime of conspiracy.

We conclude that a writ should not issue for the reason that the trial judge, the respondent, by his order in setting aside the verdict and ordering a new trial has taken every step necessary for the protection of the rights of the prosecutors to the end that they may take such steps as might he deemed necessary for the proper disposition of the case.

The rule is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.2d 519, 122 N.J.L. 179, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-favorito-v-flannagan-nj-1939.