
    Jacob Romans against Andrew Robertson.
    Unless a clear mistake in the award of arbitrators is pointed out and ascertained, the court will not examine into the award.
    COVENANT on a written agreement, to stand to the award of Aaron Williams, James Magrew and James Montgomery, who were chosen to settle a difference between the parties, respecting the price of a mill bought by the plaintiff from the defendant, and the improvements made thereon by the plaintiff, the parties allowing the bargain to be avoided, dated 20th February 1800.
    The arbitrators awarded on the same day, that the plaintiff should give up possession of the mill to the defendant, against the first day of April then next; that the defendant should give up his bonds to the plaintiff, and further to pay to him 78I. 17s. 6d. within one year, after he should receive possession of the premises.
    The breach was assigned in non-payment of the money.
    The defendant pleaded covenants performed, with leave to give the mistake of the arbitrators in evidence.
    Mr. Ross for the defendant called the arbitrators.
    The court observed, that the examination must be confined to some plain error, either of law or fact. To go through the different disputed articles in detail, could not be allowed, either on principle or precedent. It would defeat the very objects of arbitration.
    Mr. Ross declared himself fully aware of the rules established by the court, and would conform thereto.
    # o 1 *It appeared, that the two first named arbitrators, sometime after making their award, subscribed a paper, at the solicitation of the defendant, expressing some repugnance to the settlement they had made.
    Williams testified, that he thought they had made a small mistake in their award ; and if the business was to be gone into again, he believed it would be altered.
    Magrew declared, that they took all matters into consideration, when they first sat as arbitrators, and his judgment fully concurred in what had then been done. He altered his mind afterwards on the representation of the defendant, and then thought they had committed a small mistake, but at present he did not remember particulars. He signed the second paper without reflection, and was much dissatisfied with himself, for having subscribed it.
    Montgomery the last arbitrator testified, that all the matters in variance between the parties, were laid before the arbitrators, who fully considered the same, and after bestowing ten hours of their time on the business, concurred in opinion, and signed the award. He was satisfied at the time, and saw no reason to alter what had been done; he did not think they had made any mistake.
   By the Court.

The defendant’s witnesses have failed him. Surely there is no satisfactory proof of some plain mistake exhibited to the jury ! It would be highly dangerous to go further into this kind of testimony! Williams and Magrew having heard the statement of the defendant alone, and having been improperly prevailed upon to express dissatisfaction with the award they had made, are now called upon to justify what they have done. But even Magrew is dissatisfied with himself.

Unless a clear mistake in the award is pointed out and ascertained, we will not re-examine the transactions of judges of the parties own choosing.

Cited in 12 S. & R. 250.

Mr Young, pro quer.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for 91l. is 9d without leaving the bar.  