
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. HARVEY A. SEIFERT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted July 15, 1914
    Decided November 16, 1914.
    On error to the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 85 N. J. L. 104. •
    For the plaintiff in error, Osiris D. McConnell and George. A. Angle.
    
    For the defendant in error, William A. SiryTcer.
    
   Per Cueiam.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given in that court by Mr. Justice Parker, whose opinion is reported in 88 Atl. Rep. 947. In regard to the contention that a verdict of conviction was directed at the trial, we agree with the Supreme Court that there was no direction of a verdict. No such judicial action appears in the record where it normally world, appear ; the charge of the court returned as part of the proceedings at the trial shows that the judge stated to the jury what in his opinion was its clear duty in view of the uncontradicted testimonjc This was within judicial privilege and duty (State v. Hummer, 73 N. J. L. 714) and does not constitute'a direction of a verdict. State v. Lackawanna Railroad Co., 82 Id. 747.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze,. Thexcharo, .Bergen, Mtnttjrn, Black, Bogert, Yredenbtjrgii, Hepeexiteimek, AVilliams, JJ. 11.

For reversal — "None.  