Case ID: njl_105/html/0489-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam. Parker, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

PHILIP HOLETON, APPELLANT, v. BOROUGH OF NEWFIELD, RESPONDENT.
    Argued October 24, 1928
    Decided February 4, 1929.
    Por the appellant, Herbert C. Bartlett.
    
    Por the respondent, Avis & Avis.
    
   Per Curiam.

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

Parker, J.

(concurring in affirmance). The Supreme Court did not advert to the point raised here, that the ordinance was vulnerable because of the personal interest of the mayor as an abutting owner. The point was properly ignored because it was not raised in the reasons. Rahway v. State Board of Health, 80 N. J. L. 166, and cases cited. On the same ground this court should not consider whether or not it has any merit.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Kalisch, Katzenbach, Lloyd, Van Bus-kirk, McG-lennon, Kays, Heteield, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Hone.