
    GEORGE TOWLE v. H. M. RICHARDSON.
    
      Absconding debtor. Finding of trial court conclusive.
    
    The action of the trial court in determining whether as a matter of fact a debtor is about to remove from the State cannot be revised in the Supreme Court.
    Exceptions from tlie City Court of Burlington, Peck, J. Tlie action was assumpsit, and the defendant was arrested as an absconding debtor, September 2d. September 16tli the plaintiff obtained judgment and the defendant was again arrested on the execixtion which issued as a carpías.
    
    Thereupon the^defendant moved the court to vacate the certificate and a hearing was had 'on this motion, September 23d. At this hearing it was conceded that the defendant had property secreted about his person in excess of $20, but it was contended that he was not on September 2d about to abscond from the State. The court found that he was. Thereupon the counsel for the defendant asked the court to vacate the certificate for that it did not appear that the defendant was about to abscond September 23d. This the court refused to do for the reason that no such question had been tried before him. To this action of the' City Court the defendant excepted. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the exceptions.
    
      W. L. Bv/ma/p and J). J. Foster, for the defendant.
    
      Iieiwy Ballard and J. F. Oushman, for the plaintiff.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

TYLER, J.

It is stated in the exceptions, which were granted by the City Judge, that the question submitted to and decided by hini was whether the defendant was about to abscond or remove from the State when lie was arrested on the capias writ, Sept. 2, 1889. Without passing upon the other questions suggested, in the brief of the plaintiff’s counsel, it is sufficient ground for dismissing the exceptions that the question decided was purely one of fact.

Exceptions dismissed.  