
    *Home v. Richards.
    [October Term, 1800.]
    Appellate Practice — Hills — When Appellate Court Will Not Reverse Decree Establishing Site. — where in a petition for a mill the witnesses are divided whether it will be injurious or not, and th e County Court and District Court both decide that it will not, this court will afflrin the judgment.
    
      
      HiIls and Milldams. — See monographic note on “Mills and Milldams” appended to Calhoun v. Palmer, 8 Gratt. 88.
      Appellate Practice — When Decree of Lower Court Will Not Be Reversed. — In Coleman v. Moody, 4 H. & M. 18, Judge Roane said: “I am of opinion that the appellee ought to have leave to raise his dam according to the prayer of his petition. If, however, the testimony were doubtful, I should certainly respect the concurring judgments of the county and district courts, tribunals sitting in the neigh-bourhood. as was done by this court in the case of Rome v. Richards, 2 Call 507." See, citing the principal case on this subject, Brugh v. Shanks, 5 Leigh 603; Leigton v. Maury, 76 Va. 874. See also, Atkinson v. Ball, 6 Rand. 446; monographic note on “Appeals.”
    
   PENDLETON, President.

Home and Richards was thought to have been settled by the former decision; but the party desired to be heard on evidence; and the only question now is, whether the mill is injurious. The witnesses are divided; and the County Court and District Court sitting in the neighbourhood have .both decided that it was not. The judgment of the District Court must therefore be affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed.  