We are unable to. discover any error in th& record of which the plaintiffs can complain. The fact, which they offered to prove by testimony, was admitted by the defendants to be true, and the remark made by the Judge, that it was immaterial, meant, in the connection in which he used it, that it was immaterial to the- decision of the cause in the view whieh he took of it. A road was in use by the public,, and whether it had been originally laid out according to law or not, his Honor thought that another public road’running so near the same line, could not be necessary.. The plaintiffs,, then, had the benefit of his Honor’s judgment upon the weight to be allowed to the fact, that the road, already in public use. *55 had not been laid out according to law. Admitting the fact, he decided that he could not change his opinion, because he thought the road, proposed by the plaintiffs, was unnecessary any how. It is conceded that the question of the necessity for the new road was one, the decision of which, in the Superior Court, is not the subject of re-examination in this Court.

Judgment affirmed.