The court held this being the second appeal;
they shall deal with only matters of law. That
the judge erred in not making a finding on the
issue of the preliminary objection. That at the
time of filling the appeal, the same was not
barred since the time didn’t start to run until
after the preparation of the decree and record
of the proceedings. That the issue of fraud was
not traversed substantively but in light of the
acquisition of the lease with intent to defraud.