State v. Carrigan

94 N.J.L. 566 | N.J. | 1920

Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—Swayze, Trenci-iard, Bergen, IIeppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 7.

For reversal—Parker, Kalisch, White, Taylor, JJ. 4.