Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nedza v. Klein

Decided: May 6, 1936.

THADDEUS NEDZA AND PAUL JASTRABEK, PROSECUTORS,
v.
SEYMOUR KLEIN, MAGISTRATE OF THE SECOND CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, RESPONDENT; JOSEPH CUSANO AND JOSEPH STONKAUSKUS, PROSECUTORS, V. SEYMOUR KLEIN, MAGISTRATE OF THE SECOND CRIMINAL COURT OF THE CITY OF NEWARK, RESPONDENT



For the prosecutors, William H. Parry.

For the respondents, Frank A. Boettner (Thomas M. Kane, of counsel.)

Before Justices Parker, Case and Bodine.

Parker

The opinion of the court was delivered by

PARKER, J. Adopting the introductory language of the brief for prosecutors, "This writ brings up for review judgments of conviction before Seymour Klein, Magistrate of the Second Criminal Court of the City of Newark, in two certain proceedings:

"1. A complaint made against Thaddeus Nedza and Paul Jastrabek, charging that at Ferry Street, in the said City of Newark, on November 19th, 1935, they did consort with Joseph Cusano and Joseph Stonkauskus, both of whom are

criminals, in violation of chapter 133, Public Laws of the State of New Jersey, 1934;

"2. A complaint made against Joseph Cusano and Joseph Stonkauskus, that at Ferry Street in the said city of Newark on the 19th day of November, 1935, they did consort with Thaddeus Nedza and Paul Jastrabek, both of whom are criminals, in violation of chapter 133, Public Laws of the State of New Jersey, 1934.

"The two defendants in each complaint, the cases being tried together before Police Magistrate Seymour Klein and being consolidated by order of the Supreme Court in these proceedings, were all found guilty and received respective sentences of three months in the Essex County Penitentiary."

The statute applicable is paragraph (b) of chapter 133 of the laws of 1934 (Pamph. L., p. 364), which paragraph reads as follows:

"(b) Any person who shall, upon apprehension, be proven to the satisfaction of the magistrate, recorder or judge before whom such person or persons shall be brought, to have consorted with thieves, burglars, pickpockets, swindlers, confidence men or other classes of criminals shall be deemed and adjudged to be a disorderly person."

The attack is upon the statute itself as unconstitutional because in violation of personal liberty; also as obscure and impossible of interpretation; and on the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.