State v. Jappson

82 A. 316, 82 N.J.L. 20, 1912 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 167
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 21, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A. 316 (State v. Jappson) 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 v. Jappson, 82 A. 316, 82 N.J.L. 20, 1912 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 167 (N.J. 1912).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This writ of certiorari brings up the conviction of the prosecutor as putative father in bastardy proceedings and the order of filiation made against him.

The points urged by the prosecutor for the reversal of these orders are as follows:

First. That the j/olice justice lost jurisdiction to make the orders by granting adjournments for a longer period than six weeks in all.

Assuming that section 7 of the Bastardy act (Pamph. L. 1898, p. 959) means what the prosecutor contends that it does, the irregularity was an error that affected the specific jurisdiction of the police justice (see Attorney-General v. Sooy Oyster Co., 49 Vroom 394), and hence the point should have been taken in the proceedings below. It was not, although the prosecutor was present during the trial. As it is, for all that appears, the adjournments were granted to the piosecutor.

[21]*21Second. The order that the prosecutor pay “the sum of $10 for costs and expenses of the confinement,” is justified by the statute in which “costs” means not the costs of the action but the costs of sustenance during confinement.

Third. The death of the overseer of the poor by whom the action was commenced did not canse it to abate; it was brought not in a personal but in an official capacity.

Fourth. Assuming that the orders originally returned were defective in that they did not set forth the evidence on which the conviction rested, the defect was cured by the further return made by the police justice in response to a rule upon him obtained in accordance with the practice sanctioned by this court in Rahway v. Hunt, 45 Vroom 116, and Eckerson v. Mitchell, Id. 347.

The proceedings' of the police justice are affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Perry v. Lebel
1937 OK 726 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A. 316, 82 N.J.L. 20, 1912 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jappson-nj-1912.