HINCKLEY AND GANSON V. ESPRIELLA.28

accident which ordinary care and prudence under the circumstances would not have prevented. Upon the evidence adduced the question therefore became one of fact for the trial j udge to consider and determine and looking at the evidence in its entirety we are unable to say that the finding of the court below was so manifestly contrary to the evidence as to justify this court in reversing its judgment. This court has repeatedly held that its province in such cases is limited to reviewing the questions of law presented. In this particular case the question of negligence or want of negligence, after the defendant had introduced its evidence,. became essentially a question that under ordinary circumstances with a jury would have been a question of fact for the jury to find under proper instructions from the court and being tried by a court without a jury, then became a question of fact for the court.
The finding of the court that there was no negligence seems well sustained from the record and it follows that the judgment of the court below must be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with all costs to the defendant-appellee.
Affirmed.
HINCKLEY and GANSON versus ESPRIF4LLA.
No. 130. Argued January 28, 1914. Decided March 3, 1914.
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
It is not the province of the Supreme Court-to reverse a case on the facts unless the findings of the trial court were plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit; Hon. Thomas E. Brown, Jr., judge.
The facts appear in the opinion.
Harmodic Arias, for appellant. Hinckley and Ganson, for appellees.
JACKSON, J. In this action instituted in the Circuit Court in and for the Second Judicial Circuit, the plaintiffs sought to recover from the defendant the sum of $1,225 United States currency on account of a contract for legal services rendered. The

281