BRIDGES V. 8HELD0N. 37 �tinctly against the defendants. He has done this upon con- flicting direct evidence of witnesses taking part in the trans- action in question, and upon like conflicting evidence as to circumstances transpiring afterwards bearing upon the same question. Two witnesses state, under circumstances bear- ing more or less upon their credibility, that this item was dieposed of in a way that it should not romain to be allowed to the defendants, and two others that it was not ; witnesses testify that after the business was done the parties adjusted so much of it between themselves that there was not room left for this $20,000 as an existing claim, and that the defendants agreed to pay the balance, so far as adjusted, at the rate of $1,000 per week, and entered upon such pay- ments; while others, with equal knowledge and positiveness, deny that what was agreed to and done would exclude the $20,000. It is upon such evidence that the finding has been made. The defendants could not, with plausibility, and do not, claim that the finding is wholly without evidence to sup- port it, but do claim that it is against the great weight of the evidence bearing upon it. Neither do they show or claim to show that the master was actuated by partiality, or other wrong motive, dtherwise than by showing that, upon the evi- dence before him, his conclusions were wrong. They insist that the finding is clearly wrong, and that the court should, for that cause, retry the question, or send it to another master to be retried. It is not thought to be necessary to say more about the power and duty of the court in such cases than bas already been said in this case. The power of the court to set aside a report of a master is unquestioned, but it is not to be exer- cised capriciously, or otherwise, but for good cause ; and mere differences of opinion as to the weight of evidence, when they exist, do not constitute good cause. Perhaps other mastera or the court, if chargea with the duty of finding this faot, would find it differently, but that does not furnish sufficient ground for setting aside, the report and essaying such a trial to see what the res'alt would be. That would be a mere ap- peal from the master to the court, or another master, which is clearly not allowable. There is no warrant in authority ��� �
