94 N.J.L. 491 | N.J. | 1920
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant was convicted of a violation of section Míe of the Crimes act (Comp. Stat., p. 1760), which reads: “Any person or persons who knowingly receives any money or valuable tiling, without actual and bona fkh consideration. from the earnings of any woman engaged in prostitution, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanor.” The testimony in the record laid before ns, if credited by the jury, warranted the finding of the jury that defendant was guilty of a violation of the statute referred to. The judgment of conviction is here on writ of error, accompanied by a certificate of the trial judge that the record contains the entire proceedings had upon the trial of the cause, as authorized by section 136 of our Criminal Procedure act. The defendant has filed assignments of error, and also specifications of causes for re
The first point argued is, that it was illegal to allow the prostitute, from whom it is alleged the defendant received money which she had earned in the prosecution of her unlawful occupation, with his knowledge, to testify that her earnings from her illicit intercourse,.began more than five years before the sums charged in the indictment were received by him from her, and that such practices continued until May 1st, 1918, the indictment being found at the December term, 1918, of Essex Oyer and Terminer. The objection made is that as the testimony refers to acts of the defendant more than two years prior to the finding of the indictment, it -was incompetent, not as showing defendant had committed another of-fence which was subject to the bar raised by our statute of limitation, but that no testimony concerning defendant’s acts relating to the crime charged, pyior to the time limited by statute, was competent on the trial of the crime charged. It is difficult,to ascertain from appellant’s brief just what his claim is, but the interpretation most favorable for him is that tire evidence is objectionable- because it tends to prove defendant’s guilt of another and distinct crime, which would be illegal. Clearly, the testimony was not illegal, if otherwise competent, merely because it related to a period as to which the statute of limitations had run. A conspiracy may be entered into, but no overt act shown until after the expiration of’ the limitations, so far as tire agreement is concerned. In such case proof 'relating to the corrupt agreement would be competent, notwithstanding it proved acts prior to the period of limitation relating to a crime perpetrated by an overt act within two years. Testimony of the corrupt agreement entered into before the statute has run is competent where the overt act in its execution was done before the statutory period of limitation had elapsed. Ochs et al. v. People, 16 N. E. Rep. 662. And where the criminal act is the obtaining of money by false representations the limitation runs from the date of obtaining the money and not from the date of the false representations, and proof of the representations before the bar of
It is also urged that the judgment should be reversed because based on the perjury and bias of the woman, but, manifestly, this court cannot deal with that question for it relates entirely to the credibility of the witness and is within the province of the jury.
The appellant claims that it was error to exclude proof of defendant’s bank account which was offered upon the theory that if he could prove he had money in bank the jury could infer he was not likely to take from the woman her earnings derived from prostitution. It is difficult to see anything in this record that is a basis for this assignment of error, and the evidence in its support is not pointed out in appellant’s brief, while a search of the record only discloses that a. bank officer was called and produced a leaf from one of the books of the bank containing the bank account of defendant. It urns offered, and at the court’s suggestion marked as an exhibit for
■ The last objection, that the evidence does not support the verdict, requires no attention in this court, which does not pass upon the weight of the evidence.
'The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
For djfki’rnance—Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisci-i, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Aokerson, JJ. 11.
For reversaH—None.