It is asserted tbat tbe court erred in two respects, (1) in refusing to set aside tbe verdict as against tbe weight of tbe evidence, and (2) in signing tbe judgment.

First. Speaking to tbe action of tbe trial court in refusing to enter judgment on a verdict wbicb tbe court bad theretofore set aside, in its discretion, as contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence, it was said in Goodman v. Goodman, 201 N. C., 808, 161 S. E., 686: “Rulings of tbe Superior Court on matters addressed to tbe court’s discretion, e.g., . . . determination of motion at trial term to set aside verdict as contrary to tbe weight of tbe evidence, . . . wbicb involve no question of law or legal inference, are not subject to review on appeal.” In addition to tbe authorities there cited and as further illustrative of tbe rule, see Evans v. Ins. Co., 213 N. C., 539, 196 S. E., 814; Bank v. Shuford, 204 N. C., 796, 169 S. E., 226; Hardison v. Jones, 196 N. C., 712, 146 S. E., 804. Cf. Likas v. Lackey, 186 N. C., 398, 119 S. E., 763.

Second. Tbe imputed error “in signing tbe judgment” presents only tbe question whether error appears on tbe face of tbe record. In re Escoffery, 216 N. C., 19, 3 S. E. (2d), 425; Moreland v. Wamboldt, 208 N. C., 35, 179 S. E., 9; Dixon v. Osborne, 201 N. C., 489, 160 S. E., 579; Smith v. Mineral Co., 217 N. C., 346. Obviously tbe judgment is supported by tbe record. Hence, tbe exception must fail. Ingram v. Mortgage Co., 208 N. C., 329, 180 S. E., 594; Warren v. Bottling Co., 207 N. C., 313, 176 S. E., 571; Wilson v. Charlotte, 206 N. C., 856, 175 S. E., 306.

No error.