Opinion

Convery v. Conger

  • 53 N.J.L. 658
  • 24 Vroom 658
  • 24 A. 1002
  • 1891 N.J. LEXIS 18
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Filed
Jun 15, 1891
Status
Published
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 74.1%

The opinion

Pee Curiam.

Three questions were presented and decided in this ease— first, whether the statute (Rev., p. 355, § 100 et seq.) invested the Circuit Court with the jurisdiction it assumed to exercise; second, whether the judge of the Circuit Court erred in permitting one Louis Weil to give his opinion, as an expert, upon the question whether certain ballot box machines made the marks which appeared upon ballots produced in court; and, third, whether the judge erred in directing that the ballot boxes and ballots, which were called for by the petitioner and (examined and testified about in the case, should be considered ¡as in evidence upon the part of the petitioner.

The first of these questions, upon a case certified from the Circuit Court, after testimony upon the trial had been closed, was decided by the Supreme Court in the affirmative ( 23 Vroom 417 ), and the second and third questions were decided by the same court, upon error assigned on exceptions taken in the Circuit, in the negative (ante, p. 468), the Chief Justice dissenting.

The majority vote in this court upon each question is induced by the reasons stated in the opinions of the Chief Justice in the Supreme Court.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.