Kountze v. Proprietors of the Morris Aqueduct

| N.J. | Mar 15, 1896

Per Curiam.

The legal questions involved in this ease were, we think, rightly dealt with in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The matters of fact decided in that court are not subject to review in the Court of Errors.

The judgment below must be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief • Justice, Depue, Dixon, Gummere, Ludlow, Barkalow, Bogert, Nixon. 9.

For reversal—None.