
    Charles Eggler, Plaintiff in Error, v. The People of the State of New York, Defendants in Error.
    (Argued March 27, 1874;
    decided April 7, 1874.)
    Upon the trial of an indictment for murder, the opinion of a surgeon as to which of two wounds, either by itself necessarily fatal, actually caused the death of the deceased, is competent and admissible as evidence. Evidence on behalf of the accused of particular instances of exhibitions of violent, ungovernable temper, upon the part of the person killed, is not competent.
    Where, upon a criminal trial, the judge, in charging the jury, lays down erroneous propositions, but upon his attention being called thereto, by objections, corrects the misdirection and lays down the correct rule, no error is presented for review.
    Plaintiee in error was tried and convicted upon an indictment charging him with the crime of murder in the first degree in killing Ettie Conklin. The crime was committed with a shoe knife. Five wounds were found upon the body of the murdered girl; one in the left breast penetrating the heart, another in the back part of the neck penetrating the vertebrae, in which the knife was found sticking.
    TJpon the trial a physician and surgeon, who was present at the post mortem examination, was called by the prosecution and was permitted to testify, under objection, that, in his opinion, the wound in the heart of the deceased was the cause of her death. Held, no error; that it was immaterial in this case by which of the wounds the death was caused, as both were inflicted by the same hand, but, if material, it was competent for a person of surgical skill to give his opinion thereon; although it was within the knowledge of every juryman that such a wound as was found in'the heart of deceased would speedily produce death, it was not likely to be within his knowledge or in his unasserted capacity to determine how much delayed that might be; still less, which of the two wounds, either of which were surely fatal, caused the death.
    After general evidence had been given on behalf of the prisoner, tending to show that the deceased was disposed to be sullen and violent in temper when angry, and that when excited she was ungovernable and passionate. Questions were then asked tending to show particular instances of exhibitions of temper. These were excluded, under objection. Held, no error.
    The court, in its charge to the jury, laid down propositions which, as the court here held, if detached and isolated, would be open to criticism. But when the attention of the court and jury were called to them by specific objections, the misdirection claimed to have been given was abandoned and corrected, and the rule, as claimed by the prisoner’s counsel, asserted. Held, that no error was presented for review.
    
      E. D. Jackson for the plaintiff in error.
    
      S. E. Payne for the defendants in error.
   Folger, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.  