Review jurisdiction limited to apparent error; rehearing on merits is impermissible absent such error.

Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the case or obtain a rehearing on merits. The Court found no such apparent error in the earlier judgment, which had proceeded on admitted facts and had already been unsuccessfully challenged in appeal. The review application was therefore not maintainable on merits, and interference with the earlier judgment was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference with the earlier judgment and whether the matter could be reopened on merits in review.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used to re-argue the case or to secure a rehearing on the merits. On the material before the Court, no such apparent error was shown in the earlier judgment, which had proceeded on admitted facts and had already been carried in appeal without success.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable on merits and no interference with the earlier judgment was justified.

---