State v. Lackawanna Railroad

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Lackawanna Railroad

82 A. 851, 82 N.J.L. 747, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 300

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Lackawanna Railroad. Read the opinion of the Court — 84 N.J.L. 289 →

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 4, 1912·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment in this case is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court.

[748]*748We think that the charge of the trial judge did not amount to a direction of a verdict for the state, although the necessary logical result of his charge was a verdict of guilty. It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the right of the court to direct a verdict for the state upon the trial of an indictment.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Yoorhees, Kalisch, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Congdon, White, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment in this case is affirmed, for the reasons stated by the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court.

[748]*748We think that the charge of the trial judge did not amount to a direction of a verdict for the state, although the necessary logical result of his charge was a verdict of guilty. It is unnecessary, therefore, to pass upon the right of the court to direct a verdict for the state upon the trial of an indictment.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Yoorhees, Kalisch, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Yroom, Congdon, White, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.

State v. Lackawanna Railroad, 82 A. 851, 82 N.J.L. 747, 1912 N.J. LEXIS 300 (N.J. 1912).

Pincite

82 A. 851 (State v. Lackawanna Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.