State v. Lodico

88 N.J.L. 394 | N.J. | 1915

Per Curiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenciiard, Parker, Bergen, Kalisch, Black, Vredenbubgh, IIeppenheimer, Williams, Taylor, JJ. 11.

For reversal—None.