46 A.2d 813 | N.J. | 1946
The plaintiff in error was convicted because of a violation ofR.S. 2:105-1. The conviction was affirmed in the Supreme Court.
It is argued that a telephone conversation between a Mrs. V. and the plaintiff in error should not have been received in evidence. The proofs show that his voice was recognized by *230
the witness; hence the testimony was admissible. Smarak v.Segusse,
The court could not have directed an acquittal. There was ample evidence from which the jury could find a legitimate inference of guilt. State v. Bricker,
There was no objection to Mrs. V.'s testimony that the plaintiff in error had performed an abortion upon her. We repeat what was said in State v. Schroeder,
The verdict was not against the weight of evidence and such contention is frivolous.
All other points argued have been considered but require no further treatment.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, COLIE, WELLS, RAFFERTY, DILL, FREUND, McGEEHAN, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None. *231