#### HENRY S. HANSON v. E. F. DICKSON, Trading and Doing Business as DICKSON WOOD CARVING COMPANY.

(Filed 23 May, 1934.)

Appeal by defendant from Clement, J., at March Term, 1934, of Guileoed.

Affirmed.

This is a civil action tried at tbe December Term, 1933, of tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point, North Carolina, before Honorable Lewis E. Teague, judge presiding, and a jury. Plaintiff, Henry S. Hanson, brought an action to recover damages of tbe defendant arising out of alleged breach of contract, tbe defendant filing answer admitting tbe contract, but alleging that it was dissolved by mutual consent. Tbe jury answered tbe issue submitted to it to' tbe effect that tbe defendant was indebted to tbe plaintiff in tbe sum of $278.30, and judgment was signed accordingly.

Tbe defendant made tbe following material exceptions and assignments of error and appealed to tbe Superior Court: (1) Tbe defendant, at tbe close of plaintiff’s evidence, and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, made motions as in case of nonsuit. O. S., 567. (2) That bis Honor failed to define a contract and explain tbe law with reference thereto in bis charge to tbe jury.

Tbe judgment in tbe court below is as follows: “This cause coming on to be beard, upon appeal from tbe municipal court of the city of High Point, and being beard upon tbe assignments of error on tbe part of tbe defendant as set forth in tbe record; It is ordered that each and every assignment of error appearing in tbe record be overruled; that tbe judgment heretofore rendered in tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point be in all things affirmed, and that tbe clerk of this court certify this opinion to tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point to tbe end that said cause may be proceeded with according to law.”

*913The defendant assigned again, the above exceptions and assignments of error made from the municipal court to the Superior Court and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Lovelace & Kirkman for plaintiff.

Gold, McAnally & Gold for defendant.

Pee Cubiam.

From a careful reading of the record, we think the municipal court of the city of High Point, N. 0., and the court below, properly overruled the motions made by defendant for judgment as in case of nonsuit. 0. S., 567. We think the evidence in regard to the contract and alleged new contract was sufficient to have been submitted to the jury.

The exceptions and assignments of error made to the charge of his Honor, Lewis E. Teague, in municipal court of the city of High Point, as to his failure to define a contract nowhere appears to any part of the charge as given. An “unpointed, broadside” exception to the “charge as given” will not be considered. Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428. We may say, however, taking the charge as a whole, and not disconnectedly and giving it a liberal construction, we think the contentions of the litigants to the controversy, and the law applicable to the facts, were fairly and correctly given. The court below affirmed the judgment of the municipal court of the city of High Point and in this we see no error. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.