There was ample evidence, if believed, to support the charge. The police officer testified that he saw the defendant driving the car, smelled alcohol on his breath, took him to Doctor Mitchell, the police surgeon, to whom the defendant admitted that he had been drinking, and who found him under the influence of liquor, and on the stand the defendant told of having had two drinks of whiskey.
The point stressed--that the police officer's claimed identification of the defendant as the driver on South Orange Avenue is so improbable and impossible as to make his whole story increditable incredible and unbelievable--presents a question of fact and argument peculiarly the province of the trial Court, but, in any event, the fair intendment from his testimony, it seems to me, is that either because of the speed of the auto in question, or because of the auto chasing the car in question, with the occupant waving his hand to the officer, he was attracted to the automobile in question, caught a glimpse of the driver, turned around, followed the car, ordered it to stop, saw the defendant while thus endeavoring to bring the car to a stand-still, and then saw him step out of the car and away from the driver's seat.
The next point urged is that the Court erred in sustaining an objection to this question addressed to Officer Moffatt by counsel for the defendant: "How many conferences have you had about this case this morning with Captain McRell, or Doctor Mitchell?" After this question was asked the Court said: "Is that material?" "Mr. Manning: I do not see that this is material. We have a right to prepare our case. I object." The Court: "Objection sustained. I think you [counsel for the defendant] probably talked about your case with your client." No objection was made to the Court's ruling by counsel for the defendant, no exception taken thereto, and no effort made to point out the materiality or relevancy of the question, or that it was but the foundation for some legitimate attack upon the credibility of the witness. In that posture of affairs the overruling of the question was in the discretion of the Court and was harmless. State v. Panelli (N. J.) 79 Atl. 1064.
The third and last ground urged for reversal is the action of the Court in permitting Doctor Mitchell to answer the following question over objection of counsel for defendant and exception duly taken: "And, in your opinion, would you say his condition to be such as to prevent his driving a car?"