Case Name: TIMOTHY O'DRISCOLL, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT, v. FRED E. B. SCOTT ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1935-01-10
Citations: 114 N.J.L. 265
Docket Number: 
Parties: TIMOTHY O’DRISCOLL, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT, v. FRED E. B. SCOTT ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
TIMOTHY O’DRISCOLL, PROSECUTOR-RESPONDENT, v. FRED E. B. SCOTT ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
Submitted October 26, 1934
Decided January 10, 1935.
For the appellants, William Newcorn.
For the respondents, Saul Nemser.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
As to the merits of the original decision, we concur in the result reached by the Supreme Court, and for the reasons given in the per curiam opinion of that court.
Application was made in the Supreme Court for a rehearing, on the ground, in substance, of newly discovered evidence to show what the evidence before the original trial body had been; and that application was denied. A reversal of that denial is now sought in this court. We need only say that the granting or refusal of a rehearing was a matter wholly within the discretion of the Supreme Court, and is not reviewable here.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chambéelos, Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Boduste, Donees, Pebskie, Van Buskiek, Kays, Heteield, Deae, Wells, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.