
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN H. MORGAN, APPELLANT.
    Submitted July 7, 1913
    Decided November 17, 1913.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    This case is argued by counsel for the plaintiff in error as if it was before us for review under the provisions of section 136 of the Criminal Procedure act. This, however, is not the fact, for the record of the proceedings had upon the trial of the cause has not been certified to us by the trial court. The questions argued by counsel are none of them raised by any bill of exceptions. The testimony of Helen Brown, showing that she was present with Louisa Carey at the time of the alleged criminal assault upon the latter, and that on the same occasion the defendant committed an assault upon her (the witness) was not objected to; nor was the testimony of these two girls, that on an earlier occasion the defendant committed a similar assault upon them, objected to. The criticism upon the charge of the court raised by the second assignment of error is not based upon any exception, for no exception, either general or special, was taken to the instruction to the jury.
    The judgment under review will be affirmed.
    For the respondent, Louis Hood.
    
    For .the appellant, Frank H. Sommer.
    
   Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance — Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Vooriiees, Mjnturm, Kaiksch, Vredenburgh, CongdojST, White, Ter-HUjSTE, Heppeni-ieimer, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.  