
    Wright and another against The Lessee of Small.
    
      Pittsburg, Wednesday, September 6.
    in error.
    ^on pleas upon a mot'“n. f“'a . new trial is not the subject of a writ of error, notwithstanding may^e reduced to writing, and a¡^.eeablyto the act of assembly,
    
      AMOTION for a new trial was made by the plaintiff in error in the Common Pleas of Mercer county, and overruled: and at his request, the court gave their reasons in ’ 1 ’ ° . writing, which were entered on record, and removed by writ of error. 1
    
      A. W..Foster for the plaintiff in error,
    now argued that there was error in the reasons and decision of the Common Pleas upon the motion for a new trial. But the court, without hearing Baldwin for the defendant in error, affirmed the judgment, saying that there could be no error in an inferior court’s refusing to grant a new trial, notwithstanding their reasons were entered of record; as had been decided in Burd v. Dandale's Lessee 
      .
    
      
      
        Supra, 91.
    
   Judgment affirmed.  