State v. Mantis

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Mantis

155 A. 17, 108 N.J.L. 204, 23 Gummere 204, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 255

DecidedMay 18, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A. 17 (State v. Mantis) 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. Mantis, 155 A. 17, 108 N.J.L. 204, 23 Gummere 204, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 255 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

*205 Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the 'Supreme Court. The statement therein that requests not submitted before the charge is begun, or immediately after it'has been concluded, may properly be disregarded by the court is true. It should not, however, be interpreted'as permitting counsel, under ordinary circumstances, to defer the submitting of requests until that late hour in the trial. It was observed' in Dunne v. Jersey City Galvanizing Co., 73 N. J. L. 586, that the prevailing'rule in most jurisdictions requires the request to be made before the beginning of the argument. We consider that the orderly movement of the trial and the giving of due ’ opportunity for the examination of the requests make such a practice most salutary. It is only something growing out of the charge itself or from a development that could not have been reasonably anticipated that would entitle counsel to ask the indulgence of the court in a later presentation. Dunne v. Jersey City Galvanizing Co., supra; State v. Littman et al., 86 Id. 453; State v. Juliano, 103 Id. 663.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

For reversal — Eone.

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

*205 Pee Cueiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by the 'Supreme Court. The statement therein that requests not submitted before the charge is begun, or immediately after it'has been concluded, may properly be disregarded by the court is true. It should not, however, be interpreted'as permitting counsel, under ordinary circumstances, to defer the submitting of requests until that late hour in the trial. It was observed' in Dunne v. Jersey City Galvanizing Co., 73 N. J. L. 586, that the prevailing'rule in most jurisdictions requires the request to be made before the beginning of the argument. We consider that the orderly movement of the trial and the giving of due ’ opportunity for the examination of the requests make such a practice most salutary. It is only something growing out of the charge itself or from a development that could not have been reasonably anticipated that would entitle counsel to ask the indulgence of the court in a later presentation. Dunne v. Jersey City Galvanizing Co., supra; State v. Littman et al., 86 Id. 453; State v. Juliano, 103 Id. 663.

For affirmance — Trenchard, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Van Buskirk, Kays, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

For reversal — Eone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A. 17, 108 N.J.L. 204, 23 Gummere 204, 1931 N.J. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mantis-nj-1931.