88 N.J.L. 396 | N.J. | 1916
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Garrison, speaking for that court, in an opinion reported in 87 N. J. L. 15.
We deem it wise, however, to call attention to a clause in the beginning of that opinion, which says: “The plaintiff in error was convicted of assault and battery by ‘willfully and unlawfully’ striking and wounding one Thomas Mitchell with an automobile, as charged in the indictment.
“Upon the trial before the judge of the Quarter Sessions, a jury having been waived, the allegations of the indictment were sustained by proof that the plaintiff in error ran his automobile through a city street at a rate of speed in excess of the rate permitted by section 23 of the Motor Vehicle act (3 Comp. Stat. 1910, p. 3436), and that endangered public safety, and that actually resulted in the injury of a pedestrian.”
This clause is to be taken as a recitation of the facts proved in this particular case to sustain the indictment, rather than as a statement of what is necessary to sustain such an indictment. The fact that the automobile was exceeding the speed limit prescribed by the Motor Vehicle act is not the con
For affirmance—Swayze, Trewchard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisoh, Black, Vredenbtjrgh, White, Teehune, Hbp-PENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, JJ. 12.
For reversal—None.