
    MEYER v. RIORDAN.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    May 1, 1900.)
    Instruction—Exception—Appeal.
    A mere exception to an instruction, with no request to charge that there was no evidence pro or con on the facts concerning which the jury wished to be instructed, is not sufficient to raise the question on appeal.
    Appeal from trial term.
    Action by Morris Meyer against William J. Riordan. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FITZSIMORS, C. J., and CORLAN and O’DWYER, JJ.
    Uriah W. Tompkins, for appellant.
    Manheim & Memheim, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

If the appellant was dissatisfied with the statement made by the trial justice to the jury, he should have requested him to charge that there was no evidence pro or con upon the facts concerning which the jury wished to be instructed. Appellant’s mere exception to the instruction given we think was not sufficient. Quill v. Railroad Co. (Com. P1.) 11 N. Y. Supp. 80; Mallory v. Railroad Co., 3 Abb. Dec. 139.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.  