State v. Plehm

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Plehm

70 A. 1102, 75 N.J.L. 941, 46 Vroom 941, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 162

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided March 2, 1908·Published

Opinion

Pee Curiam:.

Plehm was convicted in the Bergen Quarter Sessions upon an indictment charging him with the burning of a certain building and its contents, that were insured against fire, with intent to prejudice the insurance company. He sued out a writ of error from the Supreme Court, and in that court the conviction was affirmed. The present writ of error brings the judgment of affirmance under review.

Plaintiff in error relies upon alleged errors committed in the trial. Upon an examination of the record we are unable to discover error.

The judgment under review should therefore be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Bogert, Vroom:, Green, Gray, Dill, J.J. 10.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Curiam:.

Plehm was convicted in the Bergen Quarter Sessions upon an indictment charging him with the burning of a certain building and its contents, that were insured against fire, with intent to prejudice the insurance company. He sued out a writ of error from the Supreme Court, and in that court the conviction was affirmed. The present writ of error brings the judgment of affirmance under review.

Plaintiff in error relies upon alleged errors committed in the trial. Upon an examination of the record we are unable to discover error.

The judgment under review should therefore be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Reed, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Bogert, Vroom:, Green, Gray, Dill, J.J. 10.

For reversal — None.

State v. Plehm, 70 A. 1102, 75 N.J.L. 941, 46 Vroom 941, 1908 N.J. LEXIS 162 (N.J. 1908).

Pincite

70 A. 1102 (State v. Plehm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.