
    Alexander L. Shaw, Appellant, v. William N. Smith, Respondent.
    General objections to evidence, stating no ground therefor, are not available upon review.
    January 1st, 1858, and for some years prior thereto, the parties carried on business in the city of New York, as copartners in the willow and wooden ware business. There .was no agreement as to the time the partnership should continue. On the 7th of that month the defendant gave notice of dissolution,' and took exclusive possession of the assets of the firm. Thereupon the plaintiff commenced this action for an account of the partnership, and to recover his interest therein. It was referred to a referee to take an account of the partnership property, and of the interest of the respective parties. The account was taken, by which it was found that the entire assets of the firm were insufficient to pay its debts, and the balance owing by the firm to the defendant, and that the plaintiff was indebted to the firm, and should on account thereof pay to the defendant the sum of $650.27. That the latter should pay the debts of the firm and have to his own use the assets of the, firm. The plaintiff took various exceptions to the report, raising various questions of fact. The report was confirmed by the Special Term, and judgment rendered in accordance therewith, which was affirmed oil appeal by the General Term, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court.
    
      H. D. Lapaugh, for the appellant.
    
      A. Gibbs, for the respondent.
   Grover, J.

In looking over the papers in this case, I am unable to discover any question so presented as to enable this court to review it. This court can, in this class of cases, only review questions of law raised in the court below, to the rulings upon which proper exceptions were taken. The exceptions taken to the referee present questions of fact only. Upon the hearing before the referee, certain questions were objected to by the plaintiff’s counsel, which objections were overruled by the referee, to which rulings the plaintiff’s counsel excepted, but no ground for any of the objections was stated. Such general objections, stating no ground therefor, are not available upon review. In short, they amount to nothing only to lumber up the case. The judgment appealed from must be affirmed, and I should be in favor of giving damages to the respondent, was I not impressed, by a perusal of the case, that the appellant had had rather a hard measure applied to his case, probably resulting from a failure in calling attention to the point. The respondent appears to have got all the bad debts for nothing, and, I apprehend, a larger judgment than a close examination of the account would entitle him to. But there being no exceptions on these points, this court can afford no redress, should it find the judgment incorrect in these particulars.

Judgment affirmed. .  