This is a controversy Over $14.88, -the value of a hog.
The plaintiff and defendant introduced much evidence tending to prove the ownership and value of the hog. Defendant seems to have relied upon an estoppel. The 'Case on appeal states that “His Honor did not charge the jury. He simply *275said: 'Take tbe case, gentlemen, and settle it as between man and man.’ ” Tbis constitutes one of tbe defendant’s assignments of error.
In tbis State tbe trial judge is required to charge tbe jury to tbe extent of stating in a plain and correct manner tbe evidence given in tbe case and declare and explain tbe law arising tbereon (Eevisal, sec. 535), except where tbe facts are few and simple and no principle of law is involved, and be is not requested to .charge. Holly v. Holly, 94 N. C., 96.
The manner in which the judge is to state tbe law and evidence for tbe assistance of tbe jury must necessarily be left to a great extent to bis sound discretion and good sense, but be must charge on the different aspects presented by tbe evidence, and give tbe law applicable thereto. S. v. Rippey, 104 N. C., 756; Matthews’ case, 78 N. C., 537. For tbis error there must be a