The terms of the reward provided “for the arrest and conviction of the party or parties who- committed the murder.” The only question in the case was one of 'fact, whether or not the plaintiffs arrested Stewart.
The trial judge charged the jury: “If the plaintiffs in this action have satisfied you from the evidence and by its greater weight, the burden being upon them to do so, that they induced or persuaded 0. W. Stewart to surrender his body and person to them, and- under their persuasion he went to an automobile and got in it with them and went on with them, and they delivered him to the sheriff of Brunswick County, and that was effected and accomplished by persuasion exercised by the plaintiffs over C. W. Stewart, that would be a lawful arrest of C. W. Stewart. If, On the other hand, you find from the evidence in this case that C. W. Stewart voluntarily went with them of his own free will and volition, and was not induced or persuaded by them to do it, why then that would not be an arrest.”
At another place in the charge it appears that the trial judge used this language: “Or that they persuaded C. W. Stewart to give himself up, and that in consenting to surrender to the authorities the said Stewart did so only upon the persuasion and enticement of plaintiffs.”
The plaintiffs insist that the word “only” contained in this charge is error. But in the same paragraph was the following language: “So that if you should find from the evidence that the said Stewart voluntarily surrendered himself of his own free will and accord and it was not in ’ consequence of any force or persuasion used by the plaintiffs, then and in that event, plaintiffs would not be entitled to recover, and you should answer the first two issues, no.”
The charge as a whole could not have misled the jury.
In Currie v. Swindall, 33 N. C., 361, Pearson, J., says: “There can be no question as to the truth of the proposition asserted; for, if the *483man surrendered bimself of bis own accord, without any force or persuasion on the part of the plaintiff, then he has not performed the services for which the reward was offered.”
The rule of law applicable was properly submitted to the jury, and the judgment is sustained.
No error.