Case ID: njl_86/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

EDMUND WILSON, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM H. O’NEILL, RESPONDENT.
    Argued March 13, 1914
    Decided May 8, 1914.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 85 N. J. L. 92.
    Bor the appellant, Nelson B. OasMll.
    
    Bor the respondent, Borden T>. Whiling.
    
   Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance — The Cítancelloii, Garrison, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Yredenburgii, White, Heppenheimer, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Hone.