« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
that court, which deals with some topics that PER CURIAM. The judgment under review are not heard upon this appeal, deals also, herein should be affirmed, for the reasons exand in a manner entirely satisfactory to us, pressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice with the point upon which this appeal is argued Kalisch in the Supreme Court. by counsel, viz., the legal situation presented by the fact that the statute of May 2, 1911, took
(83 N. J. Eq. 335) effect upon the day on which the plaintiff's in SWAYZE V. HUNTINGTON et al. (No. testate was killed. For the reasons given upon 39.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New this branch of the case by Mr. Justice Trench- Jersey. May 4, 1914.)
May 4, 1914.) Appeal from Court ard in the Supreme Court, the judgment of that of Chancery. Bill by Francis J. Swayze, execucourt is affirmed.
tor, against Harriet M. Huntington and others,
for a settlement of accounts. From a decree (86 N. J. L. 702)
settling accounts (87 Atl. 106), defendants apSMITH V. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF peal. Affirmed. Thomas P. McKenna, of New TRENTON. (No. 113.) (Court of Errors and York City, for appellants. Edward M. Colie, Appeals of New Jersey. July 10, 1914.) Ap- of Newark, for respondent. peal from Supreme Court. Certiorari by Harry PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from F. Smith against the Inhabitants of the City of will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the Trenton to review an ordinance of that city. Jopinion filed in the court below by Vice Chan. From a judgment affirming the ordinance, the cellor Howell. prosecutor appeals. Affirmed. The opinion of the
(82 N. J. Eq. 369) Supreme Court was as follows: "The ordinance brought up for review was enacted pursuant to
TAYLOR V. BORDEN et al. (Court of the powers conferred upon the city of Trenton Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Oct. 16, by P. L. 1910, p. 140, and by P. L. 1904, p. 1913.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Ac283. The sole objection to the ordinance has tion by David L. Taylor against Mary S. Borbeen disposed of in an opinion this day filed in den and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and Delaware River Transportation Company v. defendants appeal. Affirmed. Edmund W. Inhabitants of the City of Trenton, 90° Atl. Wakelee, of Englewood, for appellants. Cohn 731. The ordinance will be affirmed, with costs." & Cohn, of Paterson, for respondent. William E. Blackman, of Trenton, for appel PER CURIAM. The testimony in the cause lant. Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, for respond fully sustains the facts found by the learned ent.
vice chancellor. Upon those facts the comPER CURIAM. The judgment under review plainant was clearly entitled to the relief grant. herein should be affirmed, for the reasons ex-ed to him. The decree appealed from will be pressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice affirmed. Trenchard in the Supreme Court.
(86 N. J. L. 356) BLACK and MINTURN, JJ., dissent.
GRUPELLI y. ROSEN. (Supreme Court
of New Jersey. Oct. 9, 1913.) Appeal from (85 N. J. L. 388)
District Court, Morris County. Action by Eney STATE v. POTTER. (Court of Errors and ment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirm
Grupelli against Jacob Rosen. From a judgAppeals of New Jersey. Oct. 16, 1913.) Er-ed. Judgment affirmed by Court of Errors and ror to Supreme Court. Leo Potter was indict- Appeals (91 Atl. 1068). Argued before GARRI. ed for violating the general election law and the SON TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ. corrupt practice acts. . An order quasbing the Charles A. Rathbun, of Morristown, for appelindictments was affirmed on certiorari by the lant. Supreme Court (83 N. J. Law, 428, 85 Atl. appellee.
Willard W. Cutler, of Morristown, for 216), and the State brings error. Affirmed on the opinion of the Supreme Court.
PER CURIAM. The question presented in
Michael Dunn, of Paterson, for the State. . William I. and Appeals in Mangonaro v. Karl, 87 Atl. 94.
this case was decided by our Court of Errors Lewis, of Paterson, for defendant in error.
The judgment below will be affirmed, with PER CURIAM. The judgment under review costs. is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Minturn.
STATE v. HART. (Supreme Court of New
Jersey. . April 29, 1914.) Indictment of Leon (86 N. J. L. 374)
0. Hart for conspiracy to procure illegal and STATE v. SCHLOSSER et al. (No. 106.) fraudulent votes at a primary election, On (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. motion to quash. Granted. Argued before May 8, 1914.) Error to Supreme Court. SWAYZE and BERGEN, JJ. Harlan Besson, · Henry Schlosser and John Seibert were con- of Hoboken, and Mark Townsend, Jr., of Jervicted of keeping a disorderly house, and bring sey City, for the motion. Robert S. Hudspeth, error to reverse a judgment of the Supreme of Jersey City, for the State. Court (89 Atl. 522) affirming the conviction, PER CURIAM. The indictment in this case Affirmed. Lehlbach & Van Duyne, of Newark, must be quashed. The case cannot be distinfor plaintiffs in error. Louis Hood, of New-guished from State v. Nugent, 77 N. J. Law, ark, for the State.
157, 71 Atl. 481.
DND OF CASES IN VOL. 91