that court, which deals with some topics that ] are not heard upon this appeal, deals also, and in a manner entirely satisfactory to us, with the point upon which this appeal is argued by counsel, viz., the legal situation presented by the fact that the statute of May 2, 1911, took effect upon the day on which the plaintiff's intestate was killed. For the reasons given upon this branch of the case by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court, the judgment of that court is affirmed.

(86 N. J. L. 702)

SMITH V. INHABITANTS OF CITY OF TRENTON. (No. 113.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. July 10, 1914.) Appeal from Supreme Court. Certiorari by Harry F. Smith against the Inhabitants of the City of Trenton to review an ordinance of that city. From a judgment affirming the ordinance, the prosecutor appeals. Affirmed. The opinion of the Supreme Court was as follows: "The ordinance brought up for review was enacted pursuant to the powers conferred upon the city of Trenton by P. L. 1910, p. 140, and by P. L. 1904, p. 283. The sole objection to the ordinance has been disposed of in an opinion this day filed in Delaware River Transportation Company v. Inhabitants of the City of Trenton, 90 Atl. 731. The ordinance will be affirmed, with costs." William E. Blackman, of Trenton, for appellant. Charles E. Bird, of Trenton, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Kalisch in the Supreme Court.

(83 N. J. Eq. 335)

SWAYZE V. HUNTINGTON et al. (No. 39.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. May 4, 1914.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Bill by Francis J. Swayze, executor, against Harriet M. Huntington and others, for a settlement of accounts. From a decree settling accounts (87 Atl. 106), defendants appeal. Affirmed. Thomas P. McKenna, of New York City, for appellants. Edward M. Colie, of Newark, for respondent.

PER CURIAM. The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice Chancellor Howell.

(82 N. J. Eq. 369)

TAYLOR v. BORDEN et al. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Oct. 16, 1913.) Appeal from Court of Chancery. Action by David L. Taylor against Mary S. Borden and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. Edmund W. Wakelee, of Englewood, for appellants. Cohn & Cohn, of Paterson, for respondent. "&

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Trenchard in the Supreme Court.

BLACK and MINTURN, JJ., dissent.

(85 N. J. L. 388)

STATE V. POTTER. (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. Oct. 16, 1913.) Error to Supreme Court. Leo Potter was indicted for violating the general election law and the corrupt practice acts. An order quashing the indictments was affirmed on certiorari by the Supreme Court (83 N. J. Law, 428, 85 Atl. 216), and the State brings error. Affirmed on the opinion of the Supreme Court. Michael Dunn, of Paterson, for the State. William I. Lewis, of Paterson, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review is affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Minturn.

(86 N. J. L. 374)

PER CURIAM. The testimony in the cause fully sustains the facts found by the learned vice chancellor. Upon those facts the complainant was clearly entitled to the relief granted to him. The decree appealed from will be affirmed.

Affirm

(86 N. J. L. 356) GRUPELLI v. ROSEN. (Supreme (Supreme Court of New Jersey. Oct. 9, 1913.) Appeal from District Court, Morris County. Action by Eney ment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. From a judg Grupelli against Jacob Rosen. ed. Judgment affirmed by Court of Errors and Appeals (91 Atl. 1068). Argued before GARRISON, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ. Charles A. Rathbun, of Morristown, for appellant. Willard W. Cutler, of Morristown, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. The question presented in this case was decided by our Court of Errors and Appeals in Mangonaro v. Karl, 87 Atl. 94. The judgment below will be affirmed, with costs.

STATE v. HART. (Supreme Court of New Jersey. April 29, 1914.) Indictment of Leon O. Hart for conspiracy to procure illegal and fraudulent votes at a primary election. On motion to quash. Granted. Argued before SWAYZE and BERGEN, JJ. Harlan Besson, of Hoboken, and Mark Townsend, Jr., of Jersey City, for the motion. Robert S. Hudspeth, of Jersey City, for the State.

STATE v. SCHLOSSER et al. (No. 106.) (Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey. May 8, 1914.) Error to Supreme Court. Henry Schlosser and John Seibert were convicted of keeping a disorderly house, and bring error to reverse a judgment of the Supreme 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.

END OF CASES IN VOL. 91