
    WALWORTH v. WALWORTH.
    Error in fact not error in law — practice.
    Where the court of Common Pleas has given its judgment on a matter of fact it is not competent to review that decision upon a writ of error, assigning the wrong conclusion as error in law.
    Certiorari to the Common Pleas. The case below was a pro«eeding m partition. The report of partition was objected to as unequal, and many affidavits, expressing different opinions of the value were presented to the court; who, on consideration of the whole, confirmed the report. It is assigned for error, that the evi•denoe proved the division unequal, and that the report should have •been set aside.
    
      Allen, P. Hitchcock and Card, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      S. J. Andrews contra.
   WOOD, J.

The Common Pleas has given its judgment on facts •depending upon conflicting evidence. It is assigned as error in law, that the fact was different from what they found. This cannot be; error in fact cannot be so tried. The judgment is affirmed.

[Acts of courts other than law proceedings reviewable on error; Smith v. Pratt, 13 O. 548, 550. Finding of facts by court not reversible on error, followed; Markle v. Akron, 14 O. 586, 592.]  