
    William Barker, Appellant, v. William White and others, Respondents.
    This court has no power to inquire into the weight of the evidence, and determine whether the court below has come to a correct conclusion thereon.
    
      W. R. & S. H. Stafford, for the appellant.
    
      G. R. & T. D. Pelton, for the respondents.
   Gboveb, J.

¡None of the exceptions of the plaintiff to the admissibility of evidence were well taken. It was claimed by the plaintiff that he had loaned his firm, consisting of the parties to the suit, one thousand dollars, for which the note was given. The circumstances under which this note was presented by the plaintiff, and his entire forgetfulness, át the time, as to the origin of the note, its consideration, or how he came by it, was calculated to create a doubt as to the truth of the story, subsequently, told by him, that he kept large sums of money in his house, in the custody of his wife, from which this money was taken. This story, of itself, was very suspicious. This rendered an inquiry into the pecuniary condition and dealing of the plaintiff, at about the time, admissible, for the purpose of showing whether the plaintiff, had, in fact, any such sums of money as claimed by him. All the evidence excepted to was proper for this purpose. The question, whether the plaintiff lent the thousand dollars to the firm, and took the note in question therefor, was one of fact; and, if the evidence was at all conflicting, the decision of the referee cannot be reviewed in this court. It was undisputed that the signature of the firm to the note was in the handwriting of the defendant White, one of the firm. Had there been no other evidence, it would have presented a question of law merely; and had the referee found the fact contrary to the undisputed evidence, it would have been a legal error, that this court would correct- upon appeal. But there was other evidence, tending to show that the note was not valid against the firm.

In this class of cases, this court has no power to inquire into the weight of the evidence, and determine whether the court below has come to a correct conclusion thereon. That can only be done by the Supreme Court'. In this case, the plaintiff "concedes that costs were in the discretion of the court. There is no evidence of abuse in its exercise. There is no ground for the interference of this court with the disposition in this respect made by the referee. .

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

All the judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed.  