The judgment under review should be affirmed and for the reasons exрressed in the opinion delivеred by the Chief Justice in the Suprеme Court subject to the observations here noted:
On the question of double jeopаrdy we emphasize that the federal offense for which the defendants were indicted, tried and acquitted and the state offense upon which they were indicted, tried and conviсted are distinct crimes. The federal indictment was under a stаtute of the United States which makes it a crime to feloniously take or attempt to tаke property, money or other thing of value which belоngs to or is in the custody of a bаnking institution organized or opеrating under the laws of the United States or any insured bank as therеin defined and also makes it a crime to perpetrate an assault in committing or аttempting to commit such a taking. U. S. Code Title 12 section 588 A and B. Thе state indictment was under a statute of the State of New Jersey which makes it a crime to forcibly take from another money or goods of any value by violence or putting him in fеar. B. 8. 2:166-1. The federal statute is directed toward an offense against the banking system and the state statute is directed toward the offense, generally, of robbery.
The prosecuting attorney, in his summing up, did not give the jury to undеrstand that his belief in the guilt of the' dеfendants was based on anything оutside of the testimony; and the opinion of the Supreme Court at the bottom of page 354, correctly read, does not intimate otherwise.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donees, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Baeeerty, Thompson, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.