(1.) This is a suit by the plaintiffs against their tenants for recovery of possession of certain Jands, which it is alleged, had been encroached upon in excess of the actual land appertaining to their holding.
(2.) The first Court decreed the plaintiff's suit. The learned District Judge has reversed that decision in a very complete judgment, from which it appears that he carefully went into the evidence on both sides, and in addition, with a view to a better, understanding of that evidence and to clear up some doubtful points, he visited the spot and observed the local character of the building to which a portion of the case related, and the banks of the adjacent lake, and other matters, to which he refers in his judgment.
(3.) The only points which have been urged before us in appeal are contained in the first two grounds of the memorandum of appeal, namely, that the learned Judge erred in holding a local inspection in the absence of the plaintiffs or their agents and without giving notice to the parties, and in not preparing a report embodying the results of his local inspection.