
    THE STATE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH P. FENN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted July 15, 1912
    Decided November 18, 1912.
    On error to the Supreme- Court, which affirmed a judgment of the Burlington Quarter Sessions.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court is expressed in the following memorandum:
    Per Ccjream..
    The defendant was indicted under the supplement to the Crimes act of May 17th, 1906, being chapter 266 of the laws of that year. The act provides that if any person shall obtain any money in whole or in part upon the faith of a statement of the financial condition or responsibility of such person so obtaining such monejr, and such statement shall be in writing and signed by the person obtaining such money, and the. said statement shall be willfully false in any material particular, then such person signing such statement shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. The trial of the indictment having resulted in the conviction of the defendant, the case was removed by writ of error to this court fox review. The only assignment of error which is relied upon before us was. the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant.
    The specific charge in the indictment was ■ that the defendant unlawfully did obtain from- the Union National Bank of Mount Holly current lawful money of the value of $685.65, upon the faith-of a written statement signed by him showing that he and his partner were worth $17,325 over and. above all their debts and liabilities; that said statement was untrue; that the debts of the defendant were much greater than were represented; and that the statement was willfully false.
    We think it can be fairly inferred from the testimony of Tomlinson, the cashier of the bank, that the bank loaned the defendant and liis partner $085.65 upon the faith of the written signed statement furnished by them to the bank. It appeared from the proofs that they came to the bank and saw Mr. Tomlinson; that they disclosed to him that their purpose in coming was to borrow $700; that Tomlinson asked what their moans were; that they represented that they had about $19,000 worth of property and that their indebtedness was about $1,775; that this statement of their liabilities and assets was set out in writing by the defendant and his partner, signed by them, and that after this was done, was laid before the board of directors of the bank and the loan was thereupon made. It further appeared that the statement was untrue. Under this state of proofs, it was clearly a question for the jury'whether or not the defendant was guilty as he stood charged. The refusal to direct a verdict in his favor was therefore proper.
    The judgment under review will be affirmed.
    For the plaintiff in error, Davis & Davis.
    
    For the defendant in error, Samuel A. Athinson, prosecutor of the pleas.
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Trenohard, Bergen, Minturn, Kallsoh, Bogert, Vrk-DENBURGH, CONGBON, WHITE, TREACY, JJ. 12.

For reversal — Kone.  