Case Name: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MAE MIDDLETON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1927-11-25
Citations: 5 N.J. Misc. 1022
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MAE MIDDLETON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 1022–1022

Head Matter:
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. MAE MIDDLETON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted May term, 1927
Decided November 25, 1927.
Before Gummeee, Chief Justice,-and Justices Black and Lloyd.
Eor the plaintiff in error, Robert Peacock.
Por the defendant in error, George M. Hillman.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Appellant was convicted in the Burlington County Court of Quarter Sessions of selling intoxicating liquor contrary to law. Appealing, six assignments of error are filed, but three of which are now urged for reversal. The first is that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, and the second that there was no corroboration of the stage's witnesses. The testimony of these witnesses is criticised on the ground that they were paid operatives employed by the state. They were not necessarily to be disbelieved for that reason, nor was corroboration essential. That the jury was justified in crediting their testimony we have no doubt. These assignments are, therefore, without merit.
The remaining assignment is that the court erred in instructing the jury as to the law of reasonable doubt. The language used by the learned trial judge was substantially that approved by the Court of Errors and Appeals in the case of State v. Linker, 94 N. J. L. 411, and numerous decisions in this state prior thereto and since.
The judgment is affirmed.