Wasserman v. O'Driscoll

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wasserman v. O'Driscoll

130 A. 889, 3 N.J. Misc. 1151, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 12

DecidedNovember 12, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 130 A. 889 (Wasserman v. O'Driscoll) 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

Wasserman v. O'Driscoll, 130 A. 889, 3 N.J. Misc. 1151, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 12 (N.J. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon a complaint, the validity of which is not questioned, the prosecutors of this writ were convicted by the Second Criminal Court of Jersey City of being common thieves and pickpockets, and to have been frequenting and attending a railroad depot, a place of public resort, for the unlawful purpose of stealing, an offense denounced by section G of the act concerning disorderly persons {Comp. Slat., p. 1928), and were adjudged to be disorderly persons pursuant to that section of that act.

[1152]*1152The defendants below" bring up for review such conviction, and the sentence imposed thereon.

Upon examination we perceive that this case is substantially similar to that of Rothman v. State, of this term and this day decided. The questions raised are the same. We think that the decision of that case controls this, and therefore the proceedings of the court below will be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon a complaint, the validity of which is not questioned, the prosecutors of this writ were convicted by the Second Criminal Court of Jersey City of being common thieves and pickpockets, and to have been frequenting and attending a railroad depot, a place of public resort, for the unlawful purpose of stealing, an offense denounced by section G of the act concerning disorderly persons {Comp. Slat., p. 1928), and were adjudged to be disorderly persons pursuant to that section of that act.

[1152]*1152The defendants below" bring up for review such conviction, and the sentence imposed thereon.

Upon examination we perceive that this case is substantially similar to that of Rothman v. State, of this term and this day decided. The questions raised are the same. We think that the decision of that case controls this, and therefore the proceedings of the court below will be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A. 889, 3 N.J. Misc. 1151, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wasserman-v-odriscoll-nj-1925.