
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT, v. GAVINO SICILIANO, APPELLANT.
    Submitted July 7, 1913
    Decided November 17, 1913.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    The plaintiff in error was found guilty upon an indictment charging him with the crime of keeping a disorderly house, the disorder consisting solely in the habitual selling, or permitting to be sold on his premises, intoxicating liquor contrary to law. There was a motion to quash the indictment on the ground of duplicity. The motion was refused, and the sole error assigned is based upon this refusal.
    The judgment should be affirmed. In the first place, a motion to quash an indictment is addressed to the discretion of the court, and is not reviewable on strict writ or error. State v. Hageman, 1 Gr. 314; Proctor v. State, 26 Vroom 472. In the second placo, the assertion that the indictment is faulty for duplicity is not justified by the fact. It is drawn in conformity with the seventy-fourth section of the Criminal Procedure act of 1898, and is similar in form to that which received the approval of this court in State v. Wahle, 53 Vroom 184.
    The judgment under review will be affirmed.
    For the respondent, John S. Applegate, Jr.
    
    For the appellant, TVilbur A. TIeisley.
    
   Per Curiam.

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

For affirmance — Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Yoorhees, Minturn, Kalisch, Yredenburgh, Congdon, White, Ter-HUNE, HePPENHETMISR, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.  