
    In the Matter of S., an Imprisoned Debtor.
    Where upon application under the statute (2 E. S. 31, § 1 et seq.) for the discharge of a debtor imprisoned on execution, a question of fact arises as to whether the petitioner has disposed of his property with intent to defraud, the determination of the court below is not reviewable here. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 1337.)
    (Submitted May 3, 1881;
    decided May 13, 1881.)
    This was an appeal from an order of General Term, affirming an order of a County Court discharging the petitioner from imprisonment.
    The petitioner filed a petition in the County Court of Onondaga county for his discharge from imprisonment by virtue of an execution against Ms person, and obtained his discharge under article 6, title 1, chapter 5, part 2 of the Revised Statutes. The judgment creditor claimed that the discharge should not have been .granted, because the evidence shows that the petitioner had disposed of some of his property with intent to defraud Ms creditors. The court say :
    “We have carefully examined the evidence taken in the County Court, and we think it cannot be said that it conclusively appears that the petitioner .had disposed of any of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. Whether he had or not was a matter of fact to be determined upon the evidence, and the County Court and Supreme Court having determined this question of fact in favor of the petitioner, we ought not to interfere, and have no jurisdiction to interfere, with such determination. (Code, § 1337.) The intent with which the petitioner disposed of Ms property was an inference of fact to be drawn from the evidence by the courts below, and we must take it as they have drawn it.”
    
      Kennedy & Tracy for appellants.
    
      J. L. King for respondent.
   Earl, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Order affirmed.  