¶1 The judgment of conviction is affirmed for the reasons stated in the per curiam opinion of the Appellate Division reported in 50 N. J. Super. 74 (1957).
¶2 At the oral argument before us, appellants suggested that at the de novo appeal in the County Court, they were improperly precluded from offering certain factual proof bearing upon the issue of the constitutionality of the ordinance, because the court took the erroneous view that the determination in the declaratory judgment action had settled the problem of conflict with the organic law. Examination of the record satisfies us that there was no adequate offer of any such proof. Eor this reason, as well as those set forth in the opinion below, we agree that no basis is presented for reversal.
¶3 For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Hehee, Wacheneeld, Bueling, Jacobs, Eeancis and Peoctoe—7.
¶4 For reversal—None.