
    Miles v. George, Appellant.
    Practice, Supreme Court — Charge to the jury — Waiver of errors.
    
    In an action of assumpsit for board alleged to have been furnished to plaintiff’s mother-in-law, under an express contract, where the issues were entirely of fact, the circumstance that the trial judge unduly commented on the probabilities in favor of the plaintiff was not reversible error, when at the conclusion of his charge to the jury, he inquired of counsel for defendant whether there' was anything in the court’s statement of facts or instructions concerning the law that he objected to specifically and counsel for defendant replied: “Not at this time.”
    Argued April 2, 1918.
    Appeal, No. 210, Jan. T., 1917, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., March T., 1915, No. 4536, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Wilbur P. Miles v. Sarah A. George.
    Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker and Frazer, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for boarding, washing and lodging furnished by plaintiff to defendant. Before Barratt,. P. J.
    The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    
      Verdict for plaintiff for $2,500 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the charge of the court.
    
      Bertram D. Rearich, for appellant.
    
      A. 8. Ashbridge, for appellee.
    June 3, 1918:
   Per Curiam,

The claim of the appellee is for boarding, lodging and washing furnished to his mother-in-law, under an alleged express contract that she would pay him for the same. The issue was one of pure fact, and, while the charge of the learned trial judge is fairly open to the criticism that he unduly commented on the probabilities in favor of the plaintiff, it cannot be regarded as reversible on that account, especially as he stated, at the conclusion of his charge, in addressing counsel for the defendant, “Is there anything in my statement of facts or instruction concerning the law that you object to specifically?” To this reply was made, “not at this time.” Then was the time to have called the court’s attention to what is now complained of on this appeal, and the assignments of error complaining of the charge are dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.  