
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DAVID PETERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 6, 1915
    Decided June 19, 1916.
    On error to the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The defendant was indicted for and convicted of assault in shooting at children who invaded his yard; and the case is here on the entire record.
    “It is urged that the testimony adduced by the state does not support the verdict. We think there was testimony pro and con upon the facts^ and the jury were entitled to draw such inferences as they thought were justifiable from the testimony, the circumstances and the conduct of the parties. 'There was enough in the testimony to warrant the conviction if the jury believed the testimony upon the part of the state.
    “We think the comments of the learned trial court upon the testimony were not improper, and were entirely within the sphere of judicial comment, and in nowise prejudicial to defendant. The reference made by the court to the interest of the witnesses was in accordance with the recognized rules of evidence, and was not improper.
    “The reply made by the learned trial court to the inquiry in writing submitted by the jury, viz., whether it was possible to convict and recommend to the leniency of the court, was not an improper response and was in accord with the usage and settled practice of tire courts in such a situation.
    “We are unable to perceive, however, in what aspect the reply of tire learned trial court could have injured the defendant.
    “The conviction will be affirmed.”
    For the plaintiff in error, McDermit & McDermit.
    
    
      For the defendant in error, Frederick F. Guild, prosecutor of the pleas.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Swathe, Tbenchaed, Pabker, Bebgen, Kalisch, Black, White, Tebhune, TIeppenheimer, Williams, Tallos, JJ. IS.

For reversal—Aone.  