Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 N.J.L. 338

State v. Hoffman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided March 5, 1917

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1917-03-05

“The first point is, that the conviction rests alone upon the unconfirmed testimony of three boys who stole and sold brass auto lamps to defendant. It is not necessary to consider the legal effect of ibis because it is not raised by any exception. It goes to tlie legal effect of the testimony and there was no motion for direction or request to charge which raised this question.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1957

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1917-03-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

¶2*340For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, ICalisoil, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 12.

¶3' For reversal—None.

/90/njl/338 · .json · Public domain