State v. Gruich

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Gruich

112 A. 594, 95 N.J.L. 263, 1920 N.J. LEXIS 283

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Gruich. Read the opinion of the Court — 96 N.J.L. 202 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided November 8, 1920·Published

Opinion

Per CuRIAM.

We agree with the Supreme Court as to- the only point discussed in its opinion. It was not necessary to discuss the alleged error in excluding Hunter’s testimony, as the inquiry was afterward taken up by the state and answered. Let the judgment be affirmed.

For affirmance — Swayze, TeeNchaRd, BergeN, Ivaliscti, IyATZENBACH, WHITE, HePPENHEIMBR, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 11. For reversal — -None.

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

Per CuRIAM.

We agree with the Supreme Court as to- the only point discussed in its opinion. It was not necessary to discuss the alleged error in excluding Hunter’s testimony, as the inquiry was afterward taken up by the state and answered. Let the judgment be affirmed.

For affirmance — Swayze, TeeNchaRd, BergeN, Ivaliscti, IyATZENBACH, WHITE, HePPENHEIMBR, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 11. For reversal — -None.

State v. Gruich, 112 A. 594, 95 N.J.L. 263, 1920 N.J. LEXIS 283 (N.J. 1920).

Pincite

112 A. 594 (State v. Gruich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.