28 A.2d 177
Court of Errors and Appeals.Submitted May 29, 1942 —
Decided September 18, 1942.
The court will not receive a brief presented by a member of the bar who had not, as yet, been licensed to practice as a counselor-at-law.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported i 128 N.J.L. 195.
For the appellant, Anthony P. Kearns.
For the respondent, Saul W. Arkus.
Page 74
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the careful and comprehensive opinion of Mr. Justice Heher in the Supreme Court, ubi supra.
However, one irregularity in practice should not pass unnoticed. The case is submitted on briefs, and the brief for the appellant bears the signatures of two members of the bar as “of counsel” though one of them is not a counselor-at-law. If his signature had been the only one, the brief would have been rejected, pursuant to well settled rules. Duysters v Crawford, 69 N.J.L. 229; Leaver v. Kilmer, 54 Atl. Rep. 817; reversed on other grounds, 71 N.J.L. 291; Moore v Bradley Beach, 87 Id. 391, 395; Gadek v. Kugler, 6 N.J. Mis. R. 471; 141 Atl. Rep. 561; Hirsch v. DePuy, 11 N.J. Mis. R. 500; 166 Atl. Rep. 720. It has been considered, however, as the brief of the other signer, who is a counselor-at-law.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, PARKER, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, PERSKIE, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Page 75