
    Elizabeth C. Norton, complainant-appellant, v. Samuel Nathanson, defendant-respondent.
    [Argued June 23d, 1916.
    Decided November 20th, 1916.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery reported in 85 N. J. Eq. Jf.09.
    
    
      Mr. Aaron V. Dawes, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. McDermott & Enright, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Vice-Chancellor Baches, after a careful review of the testimony, reached the conclusion that the complainant had not sustained the burden of proving usury in the transactions set forth in her bill. In this conclusion we concur.

The decree of the court óf chancery is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Ci-iiee-Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Trenci-iaed, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Tayloe, Gardner — 14.

For reversal — None.  