¶1Appeal and Ebrok (§ 1022*) — Review on Appeal — Questions of Fact.
¶2Findings of fact by a referee, who heard the witnesses, confirmed by the 'District Court, will not be disturbed by an appellate court, unless clearly erroneous.
¶3[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4015-4018 ; Dec. Dig. § 1022.*
¶4Appeal and review in bankruptcy eases, see note to In re Eggert, 43 C. C. A. 9.]
¶5Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Philippi, in Bankruptcy; Alston G. Dayton, Judge.
¶6In the matter of O. L. Harvey, bankrupt; W. P. Samples, trustee. From an order of the District Court, M. C. Gibson appeals.
¶7Affirmed.
¶8J. Blackburn Ware, of Belington, W. Va., and F. E. Parrack, of Tunnelton, W. Va., for appellant.
¶9W. P. Samples, of Grafton, W. Va., for appellee.
¶10Before GOFF and PRITCHARD, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.
¶13There are a number of assignments of error. In' terms, some of them raise questions of law. An examination of the record, however, shows that such questions are not material, if the conclusions of the court below as to the facts are correct. The referee had the witnesses before him. The conclusion he reached was confirmed by the learned judge of the court below. The record does not persuade us that they were mistaken.
¶14Affirmed.