
    STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. ABRAHAM MEISEL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
    Submitted July 9, 1923
    Decided November 20, 1923.
    On writ of error to the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam-was filed:
    “The defendants were convicted of breaking and entering the store building of David Fiiiklestein, in Newark, and stealing therefrom two barrels of alcohol valued at $1,100. The defendants each filed thirteen assignments of error and thirteen specifications or reasons for reversal.
    “They are argued under seven points in the brief of the defendant. First. Answer to question put to witness John A. Fell; no objection. Second. Criticism of the charge in reference to what Adelman, an accomplice, said to the prosecutor when he made his plea. The word ‘defendant’ is used in the printed book; this, doubtless, meant the defendant Adelman. This was not error. So, point 3, criticism of the word- ‘must’, by the trial court. This is hypercritical. Fourth. ‘Who is telling the truth,’ that is your job ‘to decide.’ We fail to see wherein this was error. So, in points 5 and 6 the criticism of the charge is without legal merit. They need no discussion. Seventh. Because the verdict rendered is against the weight of the evidence. We find this is not so.
    “Binding no error in the record, the judgment of the Essex County Court of General Quarter Sessions is affirmed.”
    Eor the defendant in error, John 0. Bigelow, prosecutor of the pleas.
    Eor the plaintiff in error, Harold, Simandl.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, White, Heppeniieimer, Ackerson, Yan Buskirk, JJ. 9.

For reversal — None.  