The only questions raised in this case, are upon the reply of his Honor, to the instructions .asked for by prisoner’s counsel.
The instructions asked, were as follows :
“ That if the jury find that the prisoner’s fears were reasonably excited by the approach of the deceased with the axe, and believed that his life was in danger, or that some great bodily harm would be inflicted upon him, the killing was only manslaughter.”
His Honor, declined to charge specifically, as requested, but stated that he had charged upon that point.
There was no evidence in the case to warrant any such instruction, and all the testimony shows that the prisoner had been the aggressor, from the beginning.
It was the prisoner who received the axe and pursued do-*672«eased with it; and when the deceased, with one of the witnesses, ran into the house and closed the door, fastened it and refused admittance to the prisoner, he struck the door several ■blows with the axe; but, being unable to force the door, he pulled out a puncheon from between the logs of the house, thus making an opening by the removal of this puncheon into -the room where the deceased was, and through which the prisoner threw the axe. Upon the axe being thrown into the room, the deceased picked it up and advanced towards the door which was still closed and fastened, and cursed the prisoner ; but the axe was immediately taken from him and thrown under the bed; and the deceased was unarmed when the prisoner approached him, and seized him with one hand by the collar, holding the puncheon in the other, when, after .■a slight struggle, the prisoner taking the puncheon in both hands, struck the deceased a severe blow, knocking him down, . and giving him two blows after he had fallen.
The prisoner’s counsel also asked his Honor “ further to instruct the jury, that if they find the temper and disposition of the witnesses towards the prisoner to he of such a character as -to prejudice him in their eyes, or to influence their testimony - to his injury, they should take the fact into consideration m making up their verdict.”
The Court declined to charge specifically as requested, but ■ stated “ that tbe jury could look at tlie conduct of the witnesses.”
We understand bis Honor as substantially complying- with the request of the prisoner’s counsel; and his Honor by saying the jury could look at the conduct of the witnesses, meant thereby, and was so understood by the jury, that they, in . making up their verdict, would consider the deportment of the witnesses on the stand, and the admissions of the two female - witnesses that their feelings towards the prisoner were unkind, and give such weight to their testimonj^ as they might think it , entitled to.
*673We think it would have been better, that his Honor should have given the instruction specifically as requested, when in law, the party was entitled to it. But, it is sufficient, that his Honor, in other language, gave the charge substantially as requested, and in a way not to be misunderstood by the jury.
There is no error.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.