
    Roberts, Appellant, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
    
      Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of error — Error in charge —Failure to except.
    
    An assignment of error complaining of the charge of the Court will not be considered where no special or general exception was taken thereto.
    Argued Feb. 25, 1916.
    Appeal, No. 381, Jan. T., 1914, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. No. 2, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1907, No. 3492, on verdict for defendant in case of Hugh Roberts and Louisa E. Roberts, Executors of the last will of Charles H. Roberts, Deceased, v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Company.
    Before Brown, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Moscitzisker and Walling, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Staples, P. J., specially presiding.
    From the record it appeared that Charles H. Roberts was injured while riding on one of defendant’s street cars. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant and plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error the charge of the lower court. No exceptions, either special or general, were taken to the charge*.
    Verdict for defendant and judgment thereon. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the charge of the court.
    
      John Lamon and Eugh Roberts, for appellants.
    
      Sydney Young, for appellee.
    March 20, 1916 :
   Per Curiam,

The only assignments of error which are in compliance with our rules relate to the charge of the court, and the only complaint of counsel for appellant in their brief argument is of it, but, as no special or general exception was taken to it, the assignments cannot be considered: Foley v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 240 Pa. 169.

Judgment affirmed.  