
    George Wilson et al., trading as United Tin Trading Co., v. Marion E. Sandall.
    [Decided August 26th, 1920.]
    Where there was sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties and in the expert testimony, the finding of the master who had first-hand opportunity to value and weigh the testimony will not be disturbed unless he erred in a matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts.
    On exceptions to master’s report.
    
      Mr. Lewis Fisher, for the exceptant.
    
      Mr. Norman Grey, for the respondent.
   Baokes, Y. C.

The master’s findings are sustained by the evidence. There was sharp conflict in the testimony om the question of percentage the defendant was entitled to for compensation—so-called expert testimony. The master had first-hand opportunity to value- and -weigh it, and as well that of defendant, which was not at all times attuned to- frankness. The master’s resolve in favor of the complainants’ contention is not to be- disturbed unless he erred in matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts. Iszard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309; Haulenbeck v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; Eckerson v. McCulloh, 1 Atl. Rep. 700; Blauvelt v. Ackerman, 23 N. J. Eq. 495; Warner v. Hill, 74 Atl. Rep. 973; Bagley & Sewall Co. v. Traders Paper Board Co., 86 Atl. Rep. 1029.

As I find no- error the exceptions will be overruled, with costs.  