Court Opinion

ID: 8272552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-10-16 19:37:09.307409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:43:34.443417
License: Public Domain

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.