Zebulon Mack and Henry Noble, defendants below, vs. Jonathan Snider, plaintiff below

Zebulon Mack and Henry Noble, defendants below, vs. Jonathan Snider, plaintiff below. IN ERROR. Where such facts do not appear of record, as show that a principle of law, upon which the party specially requested the Court to charge the j ury, became, and was material in the caso, it is not error, if the Court wholly omit to charge the jury upon the point requested. THE bill of exceptions, which was tendered on the trial of the issue in the Court below, and which became a part of the record there, was as follows Chittenden county Court, Sept. Term, A. D. 1823. Jonathan Snider, vs. Zebulon Mack, and Henry Noble. [ This was an action of trover, for a yoke of steers, which had been let by the plaintiff, to one Nichols, and which were subsequently taken by said Noble, as a sheriff’s deputy, by viitue of an execution in favor of Mack, against said Nichols. Testimony was given to the jury on the trial, tending to show, that the steers were the property of said Snider in Nov. 1820, and that he let them to Nichols to be used for their keeping. It was contended by the plaintiff, that, from the evidence it was to be inferred, that the letting was not for any certain time, and that he had a right to reclaim them whenever he chose. On the part of the defendants, it was contended, that the letting was for a time certain ; that Nichols had a right to hold the steers for two years and an half. The defendants gave in evidence, a copy of an execution in favor of Mack, against Nichols, by which it appeared, that the steers had been taken and sold as Nichols’s property; and requested the Court to give in charge to the jury, that if they found the steers had been let to Nichols for any time certain, Mack had a right to take them by virtue of his execution against Nichols. But the Court declined giving any opinion, and wholly neglected to charge the jury on that point. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the value of the steers. To which charge of the Court, the defendants except. Examined and allowed in Court. Ezra Meach, 1 Truman Chittenden, > Judges. Burgess Hade, ) The errors assigned in the writ were, 1st. That it appears by the proceedings aforesaid, that the said Mack and Noble requested the said court to charge the jury upon a question of law arising on the trial of said cause, material in the determination thereof, and that said court neglected and refused to give the said jury any direction relative to said point. 2dljr. The common error. Adams, for the plaintiff in error, rested his argument principally upon the assumption of the fact, that there was evidence given to the jury tending to show, that the letting of the cattle was for a time certain, insisting, that, in that case it was liable for the debts of the lessee, at least during the time of the letting ; and he cited Gordon vs. Harper, 7 Term Rep. 9. Thompson, for the defendant in error, rose to reply, but was stopped by the Court, whose opinion was delivered by Ghs. Adams, attorney for the plaintiffs in error. J. C. Thompson and John M. Eldridge, attorneys for the defendant in error. [MAJORITY — Skinner, Ch. J.] Skinner, Ch. J. There is nothing in this case about which we can hesitate a moment. The error complained of is, that the court refused, on request, to instruct the jury upon a point of law. From the record it appears, that no evidence was given to the jurjq tending in the least degree, to prove the fact upon which the defendants below rested their defence, and to which the rule of law, requested to be given in charge to the jury, could be applied; and admitting the law to be as stated by the defendants, the court would have been illy employed, in instructing the jury upon abstract principles. ■Judgment must be affirmed, with six percent, interest thereon as damages, and single costs only allowed.