From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Pius

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 29, 1938
120 N.J.L. 189 (N.J. 1938)

Opinion

Submitted February 11, 1938 —

Decided April 29, 1938.

On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 118 N.J.L. 212.

For the plaintiffs in error, James Mercer Davis, Samuel Kagle and Carl Kisselman.

For the defendant in error, French B. Loveland, prosecutor of the Pleas, and Herbert F. Campbell, assistant prosecutor of the Pleas.


We are in full accord with the reasoning and result reached by the Supreme Court. We desire merely to mark the fact that the case of State v. Bell, 15 N.J. Mis. R. 109; 188 Atl. Rep. 737, relied upon by the court below as dispositive of the contentions that our Gangster act (1 Rev. Stat. 1937, 2:136-4; chapter 155, Pamph. L. 1934, p. 794) trenches upon both federal and state constitutional inhibitions, has recently been affirmed by this court sub nom. State v. Gaynor, 119 N.J.L. 582; 197 Atl. Rep. 360.

Accordingly, the judgment under review is affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, WALKER, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

State v. Pius

Court of Errors and Appeals
Apr 29, 1938
120 N.J.L. 189 (N.J. 1938)
Case details for

State v. Pius

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. FRANK PIUS, ALIAS IGNATIUS…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Apr 29, 1938

Citations

120 N.J.L. 189 (N.J. 1938)
198 A. 837

Citing Cases

Lanzetta v. New Jersey

Held repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because of its vagueness and…

State v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

The basis of the criticism is that this penal statute is not sufficiently explicit to inform those who are…