The opinion of the court was delivered by

This is a workmen’s compensation ease, and the question before us is purely one of fact, namely, whether the death of appellant’s decedent was due to a compensable occupational disease. The evidence in the case was carefully considered by the Supremo Court and is fully discussed in the opinion of that court, ubi sufra.

We are asked on this appeal to make a finding of fact contrary to that of the Supreme Court and decide on the *328 evidence that death was due to an accident rather than to the disease. The rule is fundamentally settled, however, that where the judgment of the Supreme Court in certiorari is supported, as regards the facts, by a substantial basis of testimony, this court will not review the facts. Ford Motor Co. v. Fernandez,.114: N. J. L. 202, 204, and cases cited; Board of Education v. Shepherd, 119 Id. 413; Pitchenick v. New York Folding Box Co., 129 Id. 399.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor., Parker, Case, Donges, Porter, Wells, Raeeerty, Hague, Dill, JJ. 9.

For reversal — Perskie, J. 1. '