This was an action brought by the plaintiff as the assignee of one Pietro Ferro, against G. C. B. Swisher, since deceased, and Angelus Young. A trial was had by the court without a jury, and upon the conclusion of the trial judgment was given in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Angelus Young, and in favor of the defendant Swisher, against the plaintiff. This appeal is by the plaintiff against that portion of the judgment wherein judgment was given in favor of the defendant Swisher.

We cannot see that there is anything before this court for consideration, except the question of whether the findings support that portion of the judgment in favor of the defendant Swisher.

There is no specification that the evidence fails to support any of the findings of the trial court, nor any assignment of error.

The first fifteen pages of appellant’s brief are devoted to a statement of the pleadings and the facts and “the important features of this case in their chronological order,” immediately after which, on page 16, is the following: . '

The evidence shows that Swisher was blind, but not dumb, and that he not only could, but apparently did, so state.

There being no specification of the particulars in which the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings we must accept the findings of fact as true. (2 Cal. Jur., p. 708, sec. 407 et seq., and the numerous cases there cited.)

, As to this respondent the court found as follows:

The court then finds that the whole sum provided in the contract ($1,835.40) with interest is due from defendant Young to plaintiff, and that $200 is a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and as conclusions of law as to said defendant Swisher:

Appellant in his argument relies upon the case of Hawkins v. Hawkins, 50 Cal. 558 , and cites other cases in which it is claimed that ease has been affirmed. That case is decided upon the doctrine that where without any intention of especial trust and the means of knowledge being equally available to each,- two parties sign a contract of purchase and sale, the seller may not assail the terms of the contract solely because he read with difficulty. But the doctrine of that case and like authorities does not .apply to cases of actual fraud and misrepresentation (Belden v. Henriques, 8 Cal. 87 ; Roseman v. Canovan, 43 Cal. 110 ), which the court found existed in the case at bar and as stated above, we must accept those findings as true. In Hanscom v. Drullard, 79 Cal. 237 [ 21 Pac. 736 ], the court says: “A man may perhaps be able to discover for himself what he ought to know if left to his own devices, but where he is induced by the artifice of another not to use his opportunities it would seem hardly fair that the one using the trick or misrepresentation should remain protected.”

The findings amply support the judgment as given in favor of defendant Swisher.

Judgment affirmed.

Craig, Acting P. J., and Thompson, J., concurred.