State ex rel. Williamson v. Judges of the Court of Common Pleas
Supreme Court of New Jersey
This is upon a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be allowed to be directed to the respondents, requiring them to reinstate an appeal in their court.
Read the full summary
This is upon a rule to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be allowed to be directed to the respondents, requiring them to reinstate an appeal in their court. The rule is argued here upon a state of the case, of which the following are the material parts: On November 22d, 1878, Charles L. Stout, a justice of the peace of Middlesex county, issued the following writ: State of New Jersey, Middlesex county, ss.—The State of New Jersey to any constable of said county, greeting: Take the body of George Williamson, so that you may have him, forthwith, before the subscriber, one of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Reed, J.
The sixth section of the act mentioned in the-endorsement upon the warrant in this case, provides that no person shall kill or have in possession any woodcock between certain dates, under a penalty of $50 for each bird.
The method which, in the game act, was originally provided for the enforcement of this and the other sections of that act, was so vague and uncertain that it was impossible to put the law in operation against violators of that statute. To remedy this, an act was passed in 1877, {Rev., p. 1340,) in which a method of procedure was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- McMahon v. . RauhrNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Mayor of Baltimore v. PorterCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1862
- United States v. NourseSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Moore v. WaitSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1807
- Hearn v. CutberthTexas Supreme Court · 1853
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. SchrierNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1958