The proffered testimony was properly excluded, it appearing from the findings of the superior court, which were fully sustained by the evidence, that the effect of the testimony must be to change the terms of the deed — not merely to remove any latent ambiguity there may be in them. The defendants must procure a reformation of the deed before they can avail themselves, in an action like this, of the facts which they offered to prove.

Exception overruled.

All concurred.