Case ID: njl_88/html/0394-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. COLOGERO LODICO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted July 6, 1915
    Decided October 15, 1915.
    On error to the Supreme Court, in which court the following per curiam was filed:
    “The defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of subornation of perjury, alleged to have been committed in inducing one Maria Diano to swear falsely in a suit brought by her against the Public Service Railway Company to recover the pecuniary loss sustained by her next of kin through the death of her son Diego.
    “It is first contended that there was no sufficient legal proof to support the conviction, the reason being that of those who testified directly to the incriminating facts, Maria Diano, and one of her sons, were incompetent witnesses, because they had already committed perjury; and that a third witness, another son, was so young as to not justify his acceptance as a witness. As to the third son, Guiseppe, we think his capacity as a witness was for the trial court to determine, and that determination is not reviewable here. As to the other two witnesses, their testimony was received without objection. Moreover, there was other testimony in this case upon which the conviction rests, viz., that of Junker, chief of the statistical record division of Ellis Island. There being some proof to support the conviction, it is not the province of this court to weigh the testimony.
    “It is further contended before us that the testimony of Junker, the witness above referred to, was incompetent, but no objection was made to it at the trial, and no reason for reversal is based upon its alleged incompetent character.
    “It is further contended that it was error to permit Maria Diano to testify as to her receipt of letters from the plaintiff in error, because she could not know that they came from him when she received them'. But, as she testified that after her reception of them the plaintiff in error himself told her that he had sent these letters to her, this contention is without merit.
    “Lastly, we are urged to set aside this conviction because of the alleged erroneous ruling of the trial court in excluding the testimony of one John J. McGovern, recorder of the city of Hoboken, the purpose of which was to show that Maria Piano had made a statement before him, in his official capacity, which was contradictory of testimony given by her on the witness stand. If it was desired by this testimony to affect the credibility of Maria Piano, it could only be made admissible by first asking her whether she had not made such contradictory statement to the recorder. If it was offered as an admission by her, claimed to be binding on the state, it w'as incompetent, for the state is not bound by admissions made by a witness called by it, even if that witness be the complainant witness in the case. State v. Hummer, 12 N. J. L. 328.
    “The judgment under review will be affirmed.”
    For the plaintiff in error, Charles M. Eagan and A. Orestes Ciccarelli.
    
    For the defendant in error, Robert S. Hudspeth, prosecutor of the pleas.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenciiard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Vredenbubgh, IIeppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 11.

For reversal—None.