#### T. E. ASHCRAFT and others v. T. N. LEE and others.

Practice — Appeal—Proceedings Concerning Roads, &c.

1. No appeal lies to this Court from the judgment of 'the Superior Court upon a petition to discontinue a public road, heard on appeal from the action of the Board of County Commissioners.

2. Such proceeding is regulated by statute and the exercise of the power thereby, granted to the county authorities is a matter of discretion, subject to the right of appeal to the Superior Court.

(Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C. 244, cited and approved.)

Petition to discontinue a public road, filed in Union, and removed to and heard at Spring Term, 1878, of Stanly Superior Court, before Moore, J.

The petition was filed by the plaintiffs before the board of township trustees, and upon the hearing before them it was refused, and' the plaintiffs appealed to the board of county commissioners, who affirmed the judgment, and they again appealed to the Superior Court. There was-much evidence in relation to the necessity, &c., of the road,, and the jury found in favor of the defendants. Judgment. Appeal by the plaintiffs.

Mr. J. D. Shaw, for plaintiffs.

Messrs. N. McKay, J. F. Payne and S. J. Pemberton, for defendants.

FaiRCLoth, J.

The Legislature has invested the township boards of trustees and the boards of county commissioners with full power and authority to order ¡the -laying out of public roads where necessary, and to discontinue such roads as shall be found useless, &c., &c. Bat. Rev. ch. 105, § 1; And by § 3 if any person shall appeal from the judgment *35of the board, the Superior Court shall hear the whole matter anew. The power here given is complete, and its- exercise is a discretionary matter with- the county authorities, with the right of appeal above stated. We see no authority for submitting-the question to a jury in the Superior Court unless as was suggested the Judge may call a jury to his aid.

There is authority whatever for bringing the matter before this Court, and if there was we should find much difficulty in deciding upon the usefulness or uselessness of a particular road, ferry, or bridge. It was not seriously contended that we ought to undertake it, but it was argued that we might say whether certain evidence was improperly excluded by Iiis Honor. We might do so, but for what purpose to the appellant, and what effect would it have ? The county authorities can allow or disallow these applications with or without the rejected evidence. The power is with them and we could not control it, and to direct the mere details would be utterly useless to the parties. The whole matter must remain where the Legislature placed it. Brodnax v. Brown, 64 N. C. 244. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed.