State v. Seifert

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Seifert

92 A. 345, 86 N.J.L. 706, 1 Gummere 706, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 331

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 16, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 A. 345 (State v. Seifert) 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. Seifert, 92 A. 345, 86 N.J.L. 706, 1 Gummere 706, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 331 (N.J. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given in that court by Mr. Justice Parker, whose opinion is reported in 88 Atl. Rep. 947. In regard to the contention that a verdict of conviction was directed at the trial, we agree with the Supreme Court that there was no direction of a verdict. No such judicial action appears in the record where it normally world, appear ; the charge of the court returned as part of the proceedings at the trial shows that the judge stated to the jury what in his opinion was its clear duty in view of the uncontradicted testimonjc This was [707]*707within judicial privilege and duty (State v. Hummer, 73 N. J. L. 714) and does not constitute'a direction of a verdict. State v. Lackawanna Railroad Co., 82 Id. 747.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze,. Thexcharo, .Bergen, Mtnttjrn, Black, Bogert, Yredenbtjrgii, Hepeexiteimek, AVilliams, JJ. 11.

For reversal — "None.

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

Per Cueiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given in that court by Mr. Justice Parker, whose opinion is reported in 88 Atl. Rep. 947. In regard to the contention that a verdict of conviction was directed at the trial, we agree with the Supreme Court that there was no direction of a verdict. No such judicial action appears in the record where it normally world, appear ; the charge of the court returned as part of the proceedings at the trial shows that the judge stated to the jury what in his opinion was its clear duty in view of the uncontradicted testimonjc This was [707]*707within judicial privilege and duty (State v. Hummer, 73 N. J. L. 714) and does not constitute'a direction of a verdict. State v. Lackawanna Railroad Co., 82 Id. 747.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze,. Thexcharo, .Bergen, Mtnttjrn, Black, Bogert, Yredenbtjrgii, Hepeexiteimek, AVilliams, JJ. 11.

For reversal — "None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A. 345, 86 N.J.L. 706, 1 Gummere 706, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-seifert-nj-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack