We do not affirm the correctness o± tne charge as to the different effect of oral evidence in reforming a written agreement not under seal, and one under seal; yet this form of submission worked no injury to the plaintiff in error. She has no cause to complain of the language used.

We think a correct construction of the written lease fixes the 1st of April, 1886, as the time of its termination; and there was no sufficient parol evidence to change its effect.

Judgment affirmed.