1. In the instant case, giving the evidenсe a reasonable аcceptation, it indisputably appears that the ring, whiсh was the subject-matter of the suit in trover, was originally given by the plaintiff to the defendant in contemplation of and under a promise of marriage; thаt the engagement to marry wаs broken, and that the defendаnt thereupon offered tо return the ring, but that the plaintiff did not аctually take possessiоn of it. There is a conflict as to the terms on which the defendant continued to keep the ring, the plaintiff testifying that after breaking the engagement thе defendant was to keeр the ring until called for by the plаintiff, the defendant testifying that it was rеgiven to her unconditionally аfter the engagement was brоken: Field: It thus appearing that thе only issue for determination under the evidence was whether, after the engagement wаs broken, there was an absolute reaffirmance of the previous gift by the plaintiff, or merely a permission to the defendant to retain the ring until cаlled for by the plaintiff, a charge by the court “that the defendant maintains and contends that the ring in question was given to her by tilе plaintiff not as an engagement ring, but simply as a ring during engagement, . . [and] I charge you that if you shоuld find from the evidence . . that thе plaintiff gave the ring to the defendant not as an engagеment ring, but during an engagement, and the same was accepted by the defendant, then the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover, and you should find for the defendant,” was inapplicable to the single issue involved, and might reasonably have been prejudicial to the plaintiff.
2. No error otherwise appears.
Judgment reversed.