
    Estate of Charles Bryant, deceased. Appeal of Daniel Bryant et al.
    Argued March 30, 1896.
    Appeal, No. 36, Jan. T., 1896, by Daniel Bryant, Richard Staples, Charles Staples and Mary Staples, from decree of O. C., Phila. Co., July T., 1894, No. 182, distributing the estate of Charles Bryant, deceased.
    Before •Stekrett, C. J. McCollum, Mitchell, Dean and Pell, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Decree of court below affirmed on findings of fact of the •auditing judge.
    . These appellants are known as the Illinois claimants.
    The findings of the auditing judge, Ashman, J., is as follows:
    The parties from Illinois deduced title from their brother and uncle, Charles Bryant, who was born at North Bridgewater, Massachusetts, but who was taken by his parents in his infancy to the west. The date of his birth, as ascertained by the public records of the town, was November 10, 1831. In some way, during the progress of the journey westward, which was performed in wagons, the child disappeared, and his history thenceforth was a blank although his parents survived until 1868. In this instance, even the slight clue which was furnished by the daguerreotype was wanting — the child of two or three years being hardly discernible in the man of thirty-five. The claimants rested their case upon what they term record evidence— the town register and, the United States certificate. It was unfortunate for them that these papers were mutually destructive of the theory of identity, because the person described in the certificate must have been at least eight years, older than the person named in the register. The claim is dismissed.
    The other facts sufficiently appear in Bryant’s Est., ante, p. 309.
    
      Hrrors assigned, among others, were dismissing claim of the appellants and awarding balance of the distribution to the English claimants.
    
      J. Howard G-endell, for appellants.
    The findings of the auditing judge are but deductions from facts found by Mm and the effect of writings, and have no more weight with this court than his decisions on questions of pure law: Phillips’ App., 68 Pa. 130; Hindman’s App., 85 Pa. 470; Moyer’s App., 77 Pa. 482; Cake’s App., 110 Pa. 65; Kittel’s Estate, 156 Pa. 445; Sproull’s App., 71 Pa. 137; Kutz’s App., 100 Pa. 75; Milligan’s App., 97 Pa. 525; Sweatman’s App., 150 Pa. 369: Fessenden’s Estate, 170 Pa. 641.
    July 15, 1896:
    
      William W. Ker, for appellee.
   Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mitchell,

This appeal is dismissed on the opinion of the auditing judge in the court below.

Appeal dismissed with costs.  