The opinion
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Colie in his opinion in the Supreme Court, and reported in 129
N. J. L.
129. In that case, however, it was stated': “We do not mean to approve the practice of by-passing the State Board of Tax Appeals, excepting where, as here, the single question presented involves a determination of the constitutionality of a legislative act.” The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on
certiorari
is not so limited. '
Chief Justice Brogan said in
Dulce Power Co.
v.
Somerset County Board of Taxation,
124
N. J. L.
481 (at
p.
486) : “A challenge to the jurisdiction of a special tribunal or irregularity in its proceeding need not, in the sound discretion of this court, await final judgment.” See, also,
Mowery
v.
Camden,
49
N. J. L.
106;
Potter
v.
Fritz,
54
Id.
436;
Landis
v.
Vineland,
60
Id.
271;
Croasdale
v.
Atlantic Quarter Sessions,
88
Id.
506;
Public Service Railway Co.
v.
Camden,
95
Id.
190;
Breen Iron Works
v.
Richardson,
115
Id.
305;
Degenring
v.
Kimble,
115
Id.
379;
Oradell
v.
State Board of Tax Appeals,
125
Id.
37;
Licker
v.
Martin Box Co.,
127
Id.
136.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance
— Parker, Bodine, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Wells, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 8.
For reversal
— The Chief Justice, Heher, Rafferty, JJ. 3.