
    CHARLES P. GILLEN, APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE RAILWAY COMPANY, RESPONDENT.
    Submitted December 5, 1921
    Decided March 6, 1922.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The legal question presented by the facts of this case is whether the defendant, a street railway company, under the statute, could lawfully raise its fares at any time it chose, without an order of the public utility commission and a delay of twenty days before proceeding under the order.
    “This question was definitely settled in O'Brien v. Public Utility Board, 92 N. J. L. 44; affirmed> Id. 587, where it was held that the railway company possessed such a right, and that case is controlling here.
    “It was made clear in the ease referred to that the raising of the rates was, as a matter of course, subject to intervention by the public utility board who may suspend the fares. The proposition is self-demonstrating that if the defendant company had the right to raise the fare it needed no order and no twenty days’ delay before putting the order into effect.
    “The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, with costs.”
    For the appellant, Jerome T. Congleton.
    
    Eor the respondent, Frank Bergen.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court. IVe desire to say in passing that the Supreme Court’s decision is strengthened by the opinion of this court in Hackensack Water Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 96 N. J. L. 184, which was decided after the filing of the Supreme Court’s opinion, and was therefore not before the judges at the time of their decision.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Tren chard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Black, Katzen-BACH, ÜEPPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, GARDNER, AcKERSON, JJ. 12.

For reversal — White, Van Buskirk, JJ. 2.  