
    THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. DELIA JORDAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 8, 1919
    Decided March 1, 1920.
    On error to the Supreme Court, in which the following opinion was filed:
    “This was an indictment for keeping a disorderly house for which the defendant was tried and convicted at the Essex Sessions.
    “The first point is that There was no habitual violation of the law.’ There is no merit in this point because the state proved, if' their witnesses were to be believed, two different days and occasions when illegal practices were carried on.
    “The next point is that ‘mere negligence is not enough to constitute knowledge.’ There is nothing in this point. The charge of the judge did not lay down any such proposition, but clearly made the guilt of the defendant to depend upon knowledge that her house was being used for improper purposes, and the evidence amply justified the finding that she had such knowledge.
    “The next point is that The court decided questions of fact that were for the jury to decide.’ This point also is not well founded in fact.
    “There was no error in the charge or other error.
    “The judgment should be affirmed.”
    For the plaintiff in error, McDermit & McDerm.it.
    
    For the defendant in error, J. Henry Harrison, prosecutor of the pleas, and Anéretv Van Bio,rcom.
    
   Per Curtail

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

For affirmance—The Chancellor, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black. White, Hepeenhetmer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson, JJ. 12.

For reversal—None.  