State v. Richardson

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

State v. Richardson

67 A.2d 885, 4 N.J. Super. 503

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedAugust 16, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 67 A.2d 885 (State v. Richardson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Richardson, 67 A.2d 885, 4 N.J. Super. 503 (N.J. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant was convicted before the Recorder of the Township of Raritan of violating the provisions of R.S. 4:22-26 by cruelly abusing and needlessly torturing and tormenting a chicken, thereby inflicting unnecessary cruelty upon it, and a fine of $25 was imposed. The defendant appealed to the Monmouth County Court, where the conviction was reversed after a trial denovo before the county judge sitting without a jury. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the county court.

Plaintiff argues that a review of all the issues of fact by this court will result in a finding in favor of the plaintiff. While Rules 1:2-20 and 4:2-6 authorize this court to make new or amended findings of fact on an appeal such as this, they also require us to give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. In this case the evidence was conflicting and the finding of the trial judge is supported by substantial evidence. We see no justification for disturbing it. Walcutt v. Holiday Motors, 1 N.J. Super. 117 (App. Div. 1948).

The judgment under appeal is affirmed. *Page 505

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

The defendant was convicted before the Recorder of the Township of Raritan of violating the provisions of R.S. 4:22-26 by cruelly abusing and needlessly torturing and tormenting a chicken, thereby inflicting unnecessary cruelty upon it, and a fine of $25 was imposed. The defendant appealed to the Monmouth County Court, where the conviction was reversed after a trial denovo before the county judge sitting without a jury. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment of the county court.

Plaintiff argues that a review of all the issues of fact by this court will result in a finding in favor of the plaintiff. While Rules 1:2-20 and 4:2-6 authorize this court to make new or amended findings of fact on an appeal such as this, they also require us to give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. In this case the evidence was conflicting and the finding of the trial judge is supported by substantial evidence. We see no justification for disturbing it. Walcutt v. Holiday Motors, 1 N.J. Super. 117 (App. Div. 1948).

The judgment under appeal is affirmed. *Page 505

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.2d 885, 4 N.J. Super. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-richardson-njsuperctappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack