For the State of New Jersey, Lewis P. Scott, Prosecutor of the Pleas for Atlantic County.
For the defendant-prosecutor, Martin Bloom and Clarence Blitz.
Before Case, Chief Justice, and Justice Burling.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
CASE, CHIEF JUSTICE. A complaint was made against George Myers in the Recorder's Court of Atlantic City charging him with a violation "of section 39:4-50 * * * of the Revised Statutes, in that on November 4th, 1945, * * * at about 12:30 o'clock A.M. * * * the defendant drove a motor vehicle on a public highway in Atlantic City while under the influence of intoxicating liquor," and also charging him with leaving the scene of an accident without identifying himself (R.S. 39:4-129). The prosecutor of the writ in compiling his state of case has not put the record of conviction in that court before us, and consequently we are not technically informed as to the decision on the latter accusation. But there was a conviction on the charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and the defendant appealed from the judgment thereon to the Atlantic County Court of Special Sessions where that charge was tried de novo (R.S. 39:5-11). The judgment in the Sessions was that
"This matter coming on to be heard de novo on appeal * * * from a judgment of conviction * * * the court * * * being fully satisfied of the defendant's guilt of the charges therein made
"It is, on this 25th day of February, 1946, ORDERED that the conviction founded on a complaint made against the defendant for violation of 39:4-50, Revised Statutes of New Jersey be sustained;
"And it further appearing to the court that the defendant herein was previously convicted of violation of section 39:4-50, Revised Statutes of New Jersey, on September 19th, 1940, before Magistrate A. H. Keller of Pleasantville, New Jersey,
"Therefore, it is the sentence of this Court that the defendant serve a term of three months in the Atlantic County Jail
at Mays Landing, New Jersey, and that his license to operate a motor vehicle in this State be permanently revoked, in accordance with the Statute in such case provided."
Thereupon the defendant sued out a writ of certiorari to review the judgment and now prosecutes that writ before us. Prosecutor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, the legality of the proof upon which he was sentenced as a second offender, and the adequacy of the language of the judgment in that ...