Assuming the action of the Court constituted legal error, it could not prejudice the defendant, for the State was not required to prove that the defendant was so far under the influence of liquor that he could not safely drive a car, but merely to prove that he drove the car while "under the influence of intoxicating liquor." This is clearly pointed out by Justice Trenchard in State v. Rodgers, 102 Atl. 433 (at p. 435), where the Justice says: "It will be noticed that it is not essential to the existence of the statutory offense that the driver of the automobile should be so intoxicated that he cannot safely drive a car. The expression 'under the influence of intoxicating liquor,' covers only all the well known and easily recognized conditions and degrees of intoxication, but any abnormal mental or physical condition which is the result of indulging in any degree in intoxicating liquors, and which tends to deprive him of that clearness of intellect and control of himself which he would otherwise possess." The State, prior to the propounding of the said question, had submitted testimony showing or designed to show that the defendant had driven the car while "under the influence of intoxicating liquor," and Doctor Mitchell had already testified that when he examined him he found him under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
No legal error being shown or appearing in the record, the conviction is therefore affirmed.
IN RE ESTATE OF ECKERT.
(Essex County Orphans' Court, Aug. 16, 1920).
Exceptions to Accounting--Depreciation of Securities--Continuing Investments--New and Unlawful Investments.
In the matter of the Estate of August F. Eckert. On exceptions to account.
Messrs. Riker & Riker (Mr. Theodore McC. Marsh and Harvey S. Moore), Proctors for Exceptant.
Mr. Edward R. McGlynn, Proctor for the Executor.