
    Ralpho Township Road.
    The petition for a road alleged that the petitioners labored under great inconvenience for want of a public road or highway to lead from a point in a public road, leading from one town to another, in a certain township, “ where the lane leading from the residence of Samuel Mutehler intersects the same, to a point in the Center turnpike " at or near the eastern end of a certain bridge. Held that there was nothing in the petition indicating, by intermediate points, what route the road should take, and that there was no encroachment on the sound discretion of the viewers in laying out the same.
    Where a view and revieiv differ as to the necessity for a road, the court may adopt either report.
    May 22, 1888.
    Certiorari, No. 68, July T. 1887, to Q. S., Northumberland Co., to review a decree of the court in the matter of a road in Balpho Township, at September Sessions, 1883, No. 4. Trunkey and Clark, JJ., absent.
    On Sept. 13,1883, a petition, signed by many of the inhabitants of Balpho township, in Northumberland Co., was presented to the court of quarter sessions setting forth that “ your petitioners labor under great inconvenience for want of a public road or highway to lead from a point in the public road leading from Paxinos, in the township of Shamokin in said county, to Elysburg, in said Township of Balpho, where the lane leading from the residence of Samuel Mutehler in said Township of Balpho, intersects the same, to a point in the Centre turnpike, at or near the eastern end of the covered bridge across Shamokin Creek, between the grist mill of John "W. Need and Paxinos.” In accordance with, the prayer of the petition, viewers were appointed, who, on December 5, 1883, reported in favor of the road, laid out as follows: “ Beginning at a post in the public road leading from Paxinos, in the township of Shamokin, to Elysburg, in the township of Balplio, where the lane leading from the residence of Samuel Mutchler, in said Nalpho township, intersects the same public road; thence through cleared land of said Samuel Mutchler the following courses and distances, etc.:”
    The following exception, inter alia, was filed to the confirmation of the report: “ 2. Because, in and by the petition for appointment of the viewers, as well intermediate as the terminal points are fixed and determined, to the encroachment of the sound discretion of the viewers in the same premises, and to the suggestion of a predetermined ground and route of the so proposed road, at least in part.” [1.]
    On Eeb. 15, 1884, a petition for review was presented and an order was made setting forth the report of the viewers and appointing reviewers. The reviewers also reported in favor of the road. On August 13, 1884, the following exceptions, inter alia, were filed to the confirmation of the report of the reviewers:
    
      “ 1. Because only four of the reviewers attended at the ad j ourned meeting of the five who at the first were present when the premises proposed for a road were reviewed and the report made up.”
    
      “ 4. Because intermediate and more than the initial points were named and fixed by the petition and the ensuing orders of view and review.” [2]
    “5. Because the reviewers were thereby betrayed into the belief that they had no power in the premises of the orders to change the so proposed route, the place of beginning or siding so imperatively fixed and named in petition and orders in the premises or the route therein and thereby suggested, so as thereby to select and adopt or report upon the best ground prepared for a road between the several highways by some such road to be connected, as the same general initial points.” [2]
    “ 6. Because the reviewers as well as the original viewers, bj means of the premises of the petition and orders relating to the initial points and route of the proposed road, were unlawfully limited and thereupon the said viewers and reviewers did not report upon the best ground so preferred for a public road between the same general initial points.” [2]
    On Feb. 2, 1885, the court set aside the report of the reviewers on the ground that only four of the reviewers met to deliberate on the proposed road. Other reviewers were appointed, in the place of the former reviewers, and, on May 4, 1885, they reported against the road. On May 18, exceptions were filed by the original petitioners.
    The opinion of the court was as follows, by Rockefeller, F. J.:
    
      “ There is no question of law or fact arising upon the evidence before the court sufficient to set aside the first report of the viewers in this case. The report of the reviewers first appointed was in favor of the road but it seems only four were present at the time they consulted and agreed upon their report, although were present at the time of the review, and for that reason their report was set aside. The second reviewers reported against the road. No re-review has been asked for, and therefore the case as it stands is a report of viewers and reviewers wherein the viewers and reviewers differ as to the necessity for the road, and according to the decisions of the supreme court the court may adopt the report of either. See cases cited, Purdon, 1510, note (b).
    
      “ I have carefully examined and considered all the evidence on both sides and am clearly of opinion that the weight is in favor of the necessity for the road. The route formerly traveled by a large number of the citizens of Ralpho, and other Townships, has become dangerous to life and property. The frequent railroad crossings and length of road to be traveled along and close to two railroads doing an immense passenger and freight traffic necessarily makes it so, and the tax-payers and public generally ought to be accommodated with another and a safer road.
    [ “ The report of the reviewers read and confirmed nisi May 5, 1885, is set aside, and the report of the viewers read and confirmed nisi December 5, 1883, is adopted and confirmed.” ] [3]
    
      The assignments of error specified, 1, the refusal of the court to sustain the second exception to the report of the viewers, quoting it; 2, the refusal of the court to sustain the fourth, fifth and sixth exceptions to the report of the reviewers, quoting them; and, 3, the decree of the court, quoting it.
    The case was heard on paper books, without oral argument.
    
      Wm. A. Sober, for exceptants.
    By the petition and order, nothing was left to the discretion of the viewers as to the exact place of beginning, nor as to the route of the proposed road until that had passed the termini of the lane in question. Its fair effect was to designate intermediate points or courses. Fixing the place of beginning at the exact point “ where the lane leading from the residence of Samuel Mutchler intersects the public road leading from Paxinos to Elysburg,” in the language of the petition and order, is in effect to describe the place of beginning and then to state, “ thence by the route of the said lane, etc.” The petition was skillfully prepared to suggest to the viewers, not only the exact place of beginning, but also the route of the road, or the exact ground it should be located upon.
    
      George W. Ryon, for petitioners.
    The definite points where a road, whether public or private, shall begin and end, ought to be set out with reasonable certainty. Keeling’s Road, 59 Pa. 360. But without designating intermediate points; McConnell’s Mill Road, 32 Pa. 286.
    It is true that the lane referred to in the petition, by the means of which the point of beginning of the proposed road is fixed, although a short one, had been opened and in nse for many years. If this had not been the case, perhaps the point of beginning of the proposed road would not have been sufficiently described. The viewers undoubtedly understood from the order in their possession about where the proposed road was to begin and end, but there is nothing in this case, either in the record or elsewhere, from which they could draw any conclusion that they were to take any particular route between the terminal points named.
    The court will judge of a road from the record. The sessions should confirm the road most conducive to the public good. Aston Township Road, 4 Teates, 372.
    A review is a .matter of right; although grantable at the instance of a party, it, as well as the view, is but to inform the conscience of the court, who may adopt the report of the viewers, or of the reviewers at descretion. Bachman’s Road, 1 Watts, 400; Paradise Road, 29 Pa. 20; Buckwalter’s Orchard Road, 3 S. & R. 236.
    The discretion of the court depends on facts which cannot appear in a court of error. Hence there is no instance in which the propriety of it has been reviewed on certiorari. Fretz’s Ap., 15 Pa. 398. All that is examinable is the regularity of the proceedings. Huff’s Road, 66 Pa. 460.
    Oct. 1, 1888.
   Per Curiam,

Judgment of quarter sessions affirmed.  