#### MARY A. BUMP v. CITY OF WILMINGTON.

(Filed 21 October, 1925.)

From Dunn, J., at March Term, 1925, of New Hanover.

Action by plaintiff to recover damages of tbe defendant on account of personal injuries on account of negligence of tbe defendant in its *867failure to maintain its sidewalks in proper condition. Judgment was rendered upon a jury verdict in favor.» of the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500.

Defendant assigned error (a) in rejecting the evidence of one Quin-livan, who testified that he had examined the locus in quo two days before the trial; and (b) in declining to submit the issue of contributory negligence tendered by the defendant; and (c) in reciting plaintiff’s contentions, as to her injuries, in the language used by plaintiff as ’a witness; and (d) in declining defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict.

Herbert McGlammy for plaintiff.

K. 0. Burgwin for defendant.

Pee CueiaM.

An examination of the record satisfies us that the trial court committed no prejudicial error in rejecting the evidence of Quin-livan, for that it appeared that the locus in quo had been repaired since the injury and before the examination by the witness.

There was no evidence to support the issue of contributory negligence. The court is not required by statute to give the contentions of the parties. We are of the opinion that, in the instant case,, no prejudicial error resulted in reciting the contentions of plaintiff in her exact language. There was ample evidence to support the verdict. Therefore, we hold that there is

No error.