Case ID: njl_95/html/0263-01.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

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. ANNA GRUICH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted July 5, 1920
    Decided November 8, 1920.
    On error to the Sup 1 erne Court, in whiph court the following per curiam wots filed :
    “The defendant in this case was convicted of committing an abortion on Helen Hunter, on the 14th day of June, 1918. After the jury had retired to consider their verdict, they came into court and the following- incident occurred: The Foreman — Wo, we cannot -agree.’ The Court — ‘I see no reason why you should not agree upon a verdict. You will therefore retire and continue your deliberations. I cannot discharge you after suck a short consideration of the case. I see no reason why you should not reconcile the testimony and reach a verdict. You will retire/ This it is argued is reversible error. It is the only point argued in the case. The argument is, that it was tantamount to saying, agree on the facts and bring in a verdict of guilty, that it coerced them in finding the defendant guilty. We think the trial court did not overstep the province of the court and what the court said was not error.
    “The judgment of the E’ssex Quarter Sessions is affirmed.”
    For the plaintiff in error, Howard MacSherry and Frank M. McDermit.
    
    For the state, J. Henry Harrison and John A. Bernhard.
    
   Per CuRIAM.

We agree with the Supreme Court as to- the only point discussed in its opinion. It was not necessary to discuss the alleged error in excluding Hunter’s testimony, as the inquiry was afterward taken up by the state and answered. Let the judgment be affirmed.

For affirmance — Swayze, TeeNchaRd, BergeN, Ivaliscti, IyATZENBACH, WHITE, HePPENHEIMBR, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, ACKERSON, JJ. 11.

For reversal — -None.