
    ELIZA F. JONES vs. JOHN JONES.
    ,,:Wheki’ ¡¡lie Superior Court, upoii ’'the facts submitted to and deterrüined by them,'refused a motion to dismiss 'a guardian ; Hold, that an appeáf could not be taken from their decision.
    Thp case of Bagley v Wood, ante-f. cited andappróved.
    Appeal from the Superior’ Court of Law of Jones County, ‘■■at the Spring Term 1851, his Honor Judge Caedweel pre- - siding.
    Motion-to-remove the defendant from the guardianship “ of the infant children of Jonas Jones, dec’d. The plaintiff is the mother of the wards, and the defendant their grand-father. In the County Court, the judgment was, that the ‘ defendant be- removed, and the plaintiff be appointed in his .place. From this 'decision, 'the defendant appealed to the •Superior Court, where a motion was made by the Counsel -of the plaintiff to dismiss the appeal, on the ground, that -the defendant had no right to appeal. This was refused, •and the plaintiff then insisted tháfthe order of the County Court, -removing the-defendant from his guardianship,’ought ■•to be confirmed, unless the defendant showed that there was no error in law or in fact in said.order. This was defied by the Court, upon the ground that the trial in that ■Court was cie novo. A motion was then submitted by the ■defendant to dismiss the proceeding for error in the rule -and notice. This was overruled by the Court. The case ■states, that “ then the Court proceeded to hear the whole matter, upon evidence and witnesses introduced in Court-; and, after hearing the whole matter, the Court reversed the judgment of the County Court, removing the defendant from the guardianship of the infant children, and declaring that lie was the proper,person ta.be theirguardian,- and directed » a-procedendo to be issued to the County Court. Where-.. upon, the plaintiff appealed‘to this Court.
    
      J. Id. Bryan, for the plaintiff..
    
      W. H. Haywood and J W. Bryan, for the defendant..
   Nash, J.

For the reasons set . forth in the case of Bagley v Wood, decided at-this Term, without examining into , the testimony,-upon which the Superior Court acted, which, we have no power to do, the orders of said Court are affirm - ed, upon the ground that we have no power to revise a discretionary judgment of the Superior.Court,-.except-for error ■ ini law. Here, none isy.shown.,

Per Curjam. Orders affirmed.

(Note. — The same point decided at this Term in,the. case.of Leavitt v Etheridge, from,Currituck.)  