Case Name: CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. SAMUEL W. BARRETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1913-03-03
Citations: 84 N.J.L. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. SAMUEL W. BARRETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 405–405

Head Matter:
CITY OF CAMDEN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. SAMUEL W. BARRETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted December 9, 1912
Decided March 3, 1913.
On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 53 Vroom 242.
For the defendant in error, Edwin G. C. Bleakly.
For the plaintiff in error, Frank Bergen and Edward Ambler Armstrong.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The important question in this case is disposed of in the opinion in Camden v. Public Service Railway Co., ante p. 305. The only additional question is whether Barrett came within the provisions of the ordinance. We agree with the Supreme Court that he did.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — Ti-ie Chancellor, Chief Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Bogert, Vre-DENIiURGH, CONGDON, TREACY, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.