I see nothing on the record in this case, to authorise the Court to grant a new trial. No question of law is appealed from. The charge of thq *393Court below appears to be quite correct, and of coarse, I. think the rule for a new trial should be discharged.
We are called 'apon to grant a, new trial in this case, not because upon the record, tlsa liefeiííLmí is not entitled to judgment: not far error iu law, in the charge of the presiding Judge, for to that no exception can be taken ; but for iliac the Judge- below should Smvo granted a new trial, because the verdict was contrary to law ; for it is our duty to revise and correct Ids errors of every description. But it is believed, that this error of the Judge, if it he one, is not examinable by tills Court, for waul of power to ascertain the fad that the vcMid is contrary to law. it is true, that the Judge below, having a power to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, because the Jury have found contrary to law, or contrary to evidence, has, us necessarily incident thereto, the power to raise the veil which separates hint from the Jury, and look into the evidence $ but between this Court and the evidence, there is an impenetrable wall; and the Judge below cannot communicate to us Ms view of the evidence, so as to enable this Court to ascertain whether he lias drawn a right or wrong conclusion from it, either in fact, or in law 5 for fee cannot draw' the conclusion of law, without first ascertaining how the facts arc. Many other points were made in the argument, bat it is unnecessary to examine them. The judgment of the Court below, must therefore be affirmed.
"Taylor, Chief-Justice., concurred.