State v. Nieberg
97 N.J.L. 348 | N.J. | 1922
The same questions, decided in State v. Solomon, No. 44 of the November term, 1921, and' which resulted in a reversal of the judgment in that case> were involved in the present case, and1, consequently, under the decision referred to the present judgment must be reversed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Trenchard, Williams, JJ. 3.
F-or r&uersal — Sway.ze, Parker, JIinturn, Ivalisch, Black, White, Hbppenheimer, Gardner, Van Buskirk, JJ. 9.
