Tbe allegations of tbe complaint and tbe evidence introduced on part of plaintiff present, and are intended to present, tbe question of defendant’s liability in two aspects:
First, by reason of an alleged negligent order on part of defendant’s agent.
Second, tbe violation of a town ordinance applicable to conditions presented and alleged to be a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury.
Tbe two grounds of liability were distinctly recognized on a former appeal in tbis cause, wherein Associate Justice Adams, delivering tbe opinion, interpreting the complaint, said: “Tbe principal alleged acts of negligence are tbe breach of a town ordinance and tbe negligent employment by defendant of an immature and inexperienced youth to go upon a dangerous mission.” Cherry v. R. R., 185 N. C., 90-92.
Tbe ruling in respect to tbe violation of a valid town ordinance, when shown to be tbe proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, or one of them, is in accord with our decisions on tbe subject (Stultz v. Thomas, 182 N. C., 471; Paul v. R. R., 170 N. C., 230), and there was prejudicial error, therefore, in restricting tbe issue of liability to tbe question of tbe agency of Moore and bis conduct in tbe matter. It is contended for defendant that plaintiff is precluded from tbis, bis principal objection, by reason of an entry appearing in tbe case on appeal immediately preceding bis Honor’s charge, in terms as follows:
“The court then stated that upon tbe first issue be would charge tbe jury that in order for them to answer it in tbe affirmative, they would have to find that tbe plaintiff was sent to mail tbe letter by an agent of tbe defendant while acting in tbe scope of bis authority, to which there was no exception, tbe case having been beard upon tbe theory that plaintiff was injured while acting under tbe direction of tbe defendant’s local agent. Whereupon tbe court charged tbe jury as followsBut, in our opinion, tbis position cannot be maintained.
It is tbe approved construction of our statute regulating appeals, more especially C. S., secs. 643 and 520, subsec. 2, that exceptions to tbe charge are not required to be made at or immediately after tbe trial, but appellant is entitled to have them considered if they appear for tbe first time in tbe case on appeal, where tbe same is tendered in apt time. Paul v. Burton, 180 N. C., 45, citing Bernhardt v. Brown, 118 N. C., 700; Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N. C., 718; C. S., sec. 590, subsec. 2, and other cases. And a party is not to be deprived of tbis privilege because tbe trial judge sees proper in advance to intimate what bis instructions will be, unless tbe propositions as stated are expressly agreed to by tbe parties. When they become and are made a part of tbe charge, they are open to exception, as tbe statute provides. True, tbe entry referred to closes with tbe statement that tbe case was tried on tbe theory that *266plaintiff was injured while acting under the direction of defendant’s local agent, but there is nothing in the record to indicate that appellant assented to any such procedure, and in the absence of such assent he was entitled to have his cause presented to the jury in every aspect that his pleadings and evidence would justify, and- a failure to do this in any substantial or essential feature of the case will constitute reversible error. S. v. Merrick, 171 N. C., 788-195.
In our opinion, there should be a new trial of the cause, and it is so ordered.
New trial.