SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

the court below found with the appellee. We are not disposed to disturb such finding of fact, as it is a well settled principle of practice that unless the weight of evidence is manifestly against thefindingof the judgmentof the tribunal who heard the witnesses, saw their manner of testifying and therefore, had much better opportunity to judge of the weight to be given their testimony than the reviewing court, the finding should not be disturbed.
In the case at the bar the evidence though conflicting is sufficient to support, the judgment of the trial court and will therefore be affirmed.
Such judgment is therefore affirmed. Let it be so certified.
The CHIEF JUSTICE concurred.
Affirmed.
VILLALOBOS et al., versus FOLESTON et al., UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor.
No. 59. Argued January 19, 1910. Decided November 9, 191C.
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
Whenever the judgment or decree of the trial court or of the judge thereof
is plainly against the weight of the evidence, the same will be reverse.
Appeal by defendants and intervenor from decree of the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit; Hon. Lorin C. Collins, Judge.
The facts appear in the opinion.
Carrington and Todd for defendants-appellants. G. M. Shontz for intervenor. C. P. Fairman for appellee.
WESLEY M. OWEN, J. On February 13, 1908, Lino Villalobos, a son, along with ten other alleged landowners, filed their complaint in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit of the Canal Zone, in a proceeding entitled, "An action in ejectment and to quiet title to real estate."
The action so instituted was against a large number of defendants, the names of some being unknown.
It was alleged in the complaint that certain defendants, naming them, were wrongfully residing upon or occupying part of the lands owned by the complainants, and that such defendants so in possession and occupancy were wrongdoers as against the

34