
    WARD vs. WINSTON & Co.
    1. In assurcpsit by plaintiff against his commission merchants, to recover damages for losses on cotton, plaintiff introduced proof of a conversation between ■ himself and defendants, for the purpose of showing that he had instructed them to sell his cotton and not to hold it. Held,
    
    That the foot of instructions must be determined from the whole conversation, as brought out on'direct examination and eross examination; and that the court projrerly refused to instruct the jury upon the effect of a particular portion of it only.
    Errou to the Circuit Court of Sumter.
    Tried before the Hon. Wm. R. Smith.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error, ag dnst the defendants, who were his commission merchants, to recover damages for their alleged neglect and mismanagement in the sale of his cotton. Plaintiff proved, that after defendants had received his cotton, he told them that he wanted it sold, ai.d not held, as he had previously suffered from having his cotton held. The witness who testified to this conversation also testified, on cross examination, that when plaintiff gave these instructions to defendants, defendants informed him that, in consequence of a pressure in the money market, at that time, his cotton would not sell for more than 6J cents, although it Avas worth 7 cents; to which plaintiff replied that he would like to have seven cents. The cotton was held until May 1, and then sold for 5¿ cents. .
    
      The plaintiff requested the court to charge the jury, that if they believed he had told defendants that he wanted his cotton sold, and not held, as he had previously suffered much, from having his cotton held, that this amounted to instructions to sell. The court refused the charge, and instructed the jury, that he would leave it to them to interpret the whole conversation, as brought out by the direct and cross examination. There was a verdict for the defendants. The charge refused and the charge given, are now assigned for error.
    B. H. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
    Bliss & Baldwin, for defendants.
   GOLDTHWAITE, J.

It is apparent, from, an examination of the bill of exceptions in this case, that the question before the jury was simply to ascertain, from the conversation proved to have taken place between the parties, whether it was the intention of the plaintiff in error to instruct the defendants, his factors, to sell. To ascertain this, they were to consider the whole conversation; and the court committed no error in refusing to charge upon the effect of a particular portion only. The charge given was equivalent to instructions, that in ascertaining the fact which the conversation was introduced to prove, they should look to the whole conversation.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.  