There was no evidence of an open, visible change of possession of the property; and in a sale of chattels, retention of possession by the vendor, unless satisfactorily explained, is conclusive evidence of a secret trust and of fraud which defeats the sale as against the vendor’s creditors. Lang v. Stockwell, 55 N. H. 561; Cutting v. Jackson, 56 N. H. 253; Plaisted v. Holmes, 58 N. H. 294; Sumner v. Dalton, 58 N. H. 295; Parker v. Marvell, 60 N. H. 30. In the evidence offered to explain the want of a change of possession, and excluded as affording no satisfactory explanation, there was nothing tending to show such a publicity in the sale as would naturally give it notoriety. Cutting v. Jackson, supra, 255. The exceptions are overruled, and there is

Judgment on the verdict.