The allegation was, that the defendant had deceived and defrauded the plaintiff by misrepresentations, and that he was enabled to do so by reason of superior and exclusive information, which he possessed in regard to the-subject matter of the contract. There was conflicting evidence.

*543 His Honor charged the jury, that if the defendant had deceived the plaintiff by false representations, and was enabled to do so by superior and exclusive information of the subject matter, the plaintiff was entitled to recover; and the jury found for the defendant.

The plaintiff excepted, upon the ground, that whether the defendant had such superior and exclusive information, was not a question of fact for the jury, but a question of law, for the Court. This is the only question presented in the case. It was pressed with considerable zeal by the learned counsel, because, as we suppose, of the large amount involved; but really there seems to us to be no foundation for the exception, and it cannot be made plainer by discussion. •

Whether one party has superior and exclusive information of the subject matter of a contract, and is thereby enabled to deceive, and does deceive the other, is purely a question of fact. It may be that the jury found against the weight of the evidence in this case, but we cannot consider that.

There is no error.

Pee, Curiam. Judgment affirmed.