This action arose out of a controversy between the parties as to the location of the land described in certain deeds under which plaintiff claims title to the land described in the complaint. The evidence offered by plaintiff tended to show that the land described in the complaint is the identical land described in the deeds. The evidence offered by defendants tended to show the contrary. This conflicting evidence was submitted to the jury under a charge which was free from error. Defendants’ assignments of error- on their appeal to this Court cannot be sustained.

The evidence offered by plaintiff and admitted subject to defendants’ exceptions tended to identify the land described in the deeds under which plaintiff claims title as the land described in the complaint. This evidence was competent and was properly admitted.

Defendants’ motion for a new trial, made in this Court, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, has been duly considered. The motion is denied. The newly discovered evidence, if competent, is merely cumulative. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.