
    DANIEL HERMANN, APPELLANT, v. TOWN OF GUTTENBERG, RESPONDENT.
    Argued June 26, 1914
    Decided November 16, 1914.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which court the following opinion was rendered bv Mr. Justice Swayze:
    “The court has come to the conclusion that the judgment in this case ought to be for the defendants. I think that the act of 1884 authorizes the council to establish a police department; and while in order to make their action effective an appropriation by the voters was necessary under that act, the fact that there is no antecedent appropriation could not affect their right to establish the police department. The two acts must concur under the statute of 1884. It follows that they had a right to make appointments of the policemen, and they had money enough in hand to pay them for the year 1913; that, it seems to me, prevents the court from setting aside either the ordinance or the resolution of appointment.
    ■'Whether the council had the right, in 1913, to make an appropriation for 1914 is, I think, a more difficult question, for it seems to be probable that under the act of 1912 the words Tor the current year5 applied to all the appropriations, and not merely, as Mr. Collins contended, to the school appropriations. But I do not think it necessary now to decide that question.
    “The judgment will be for the defendants.”
    
      Por the appellant, Warren Dixon.
    
    Por the respondent, J. Emil Walscheid.
    
   Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Ci-iiee Justice, Garrison, Trenoi-iard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisoh, Black, Bogebt, V redenburgii, Heppenh ether, W illiams, J J. 12.

For reversal — None.  