Case Name: MAX WASSERMAN AND FRANK SMITH, PROSECUTORS, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND WILLIAM V. O'DRISCOLL, JUDGE OF THE SECOND CRIMINAL COURT OF JERSEY CITY, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1925-11-12
Citations: 3 N.J. Misc. 1151
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAX WASSERMAN AND FRANK SMITH, PROSECUTORS, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND WILLIAM V. O’DRISCOLL, JUDGE OF THE SECOND CRIMINAL COURT OF JERSEY CITY, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 1151–1152

Head Matter:
MAX WASSERMAN AND FRANK SMITH, PROSECUTORS, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND WILLIAM V. O’DRISCOLL, JUDGE OF THE SECOND CRIMINAL COURT OF JERSEY CITY, RESPONDENTS.
Submitted May 15, 1925
Decided November 12, 1925.
Before Justices Tren chard, Katzenbach and Lloyd.
Por the prosecutors, Hyman Brodsky and Edward M. Salley.
Por the respondents, Thomas J. Brogan and Charles Hershenstein.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Upon a complaint, the validity of which is not questioned, the prosecutors of this writ were convicted by the Second Criminal Court of Jersey City of being common thieves and pickpockets, and to have been frequenting and attending a railroad depot, a place of public resort, for the unlawful purpose of stealing, an offense denounced by section G of the act concerning disorderly persons {Comp. Slat., p. 1928), and were adjudged to be disorderly persons pursuant to that section of that act.
The defendants below" bring up for review such conviction, and the sentence imposed thereon.
Upon examination we perceive that this case is substantially similar to that of Rothman v. State, of this term and this day decided. The questions raised are the same. We think that the decision of that case controls this, and therefore the proceedings of the court below will be affirmed, with costs.