State v. Lewandowski

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Lewandowski

3 A.2d 871, 121 N.J.L. 612, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 260

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 30, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.2d 871 (State v. Lewandowski) 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. Lewandowski, 3 A.2d 871, 121 N.J.L. 612, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 260 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of conducting a lottery in violation of B. S. 2:147-1. The indictment charges the offense in the language of the statute and was, therefore, sufficient. State v. Morris, 98 N. J. L. 621; affirmed, 99 Id. 526.

It is argued in the brief for the appellant that there was error in admitting testimony that tended to fix an operation of a lottery on January 6th, the indictment charging the-commission of the offense on January 1st, 1938. We think not. The averment of time in the indictment was in this ease purely formal, and the defendant was in nowise prejudiced by the variation. State v. Yanetti, 101 N. J. L. 85; State v. Butler, 7 N. J. Mis. R. 868. In fact, the witness called, who had purchased tickets in one of defendant’s lotteries, might well not recall the precise date of purchase or draw. In no sense was the state proving an extraneous crime but merely establishing, as well as it could, the time when the witness had participated in a lottery operated by the defendant.

Slips bearing dates in the years 1931 and 1932 were found by the police in a drawer back of the counter in the store *614 occupied by defendant’s father. Testimony with respect thereto was not objected to at the proper time. The testimony having been given without objection, the refusal of the trial judge to strike was not legal error. The case is before us on strict bill of exceptions.

Other matters raised in the brief have been carefully considered but have no merit. Assignments of error not argued are deemed abandoned and are not considered.

The conviction is affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a conviction of conducting a lottery in violation of B. S. 2:147-1. The indictment charges the offense in the language of the statute and was, therefore, sufficient. State v. Morris, 98 N. J. L. 621; affirmed, 99 Id. 526.

It is argued in the brief for the appellant that there was error in admitting testimony that tended to fix an operation of a lottery on January 6th, the indictment charging the-commission of the offense on January 1st, 1938. We think not. The averment of time in the indictment was in this ease purely formal, and the defendant was in nowise prejudiced by the variation. State v. Yanetti, 101 N. J. L. 85; State v. Butler, 7 N. J. Mis. R. 868. In fact, the witness called, who had purchased tickets in one of defendant’s lotteries, might well not recall the precise date of purchase or draw. In no sense was the state proving an extraneous crime but merely establishing, as well as it could, the time when the witness had participated in a lottery operated by the defendant.

Slips bearing dates in the years 1931 and 1932 were found by the police in a drawer back of the counter in the store *614 occupied by defendant’s father. Testimony with respect thereto was not objected to at the proper time. The testimony having been given without objection, the refusal of the trial judge to strike was not legal error. The case is before us on strict bill of exceptions.

Other matters raised in the brief have been carefully considered but have no merit. Assignments of error not argued are deemed abandoned and are not considered.

The conviction is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.2d 871, 121 N.J.L. 612, 1939 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lewandowski-nj-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack