Case Name: CHARLES CHRISTIANSEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. W. H. & F. W. CANE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1910-09-16
Citations: 80 N.J.L. 460
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES CHRISTIANSEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. W. H. & F. W. CANE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 460–460

Head Matter:
CHARLES CHRISTIANSEN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. W. H. & F. W. CANE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
Argued June 23, 1910
Decided September 16, 1910.
For the plaintiff in error,. Charles F. 8. Simpson and Bichard Jam,es Donovan (of the Eew York Bar).
For the defendant in error, Frederick J. Faulks.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Eo bill of exceptions has been filed with the writ of error, and although the attention of counsel was called to the defect upon the argument, the lack has not been supplied. Eo error has been made to appear to us and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Minturn, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Gray, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 14.
For reversal—Eone.