The charge given by the trial justice was in substantial compliance with the requested instructions and correctly stated the law applicable to the issues raised by the pleadings and the evidence. McGowan v. Court of Probate, 27 R.I. 394. We have already considered defendant's contentions with respect to the third, fourth and fifth requests under its exception to the denial of the motion for a directed verdict and find them lacking in merit.
It is not the privilege of counsel to dictate the exact words which shall be used in the charge. Where the law, pertaining to the issues, is stated correctly by the court in its general charge, there is no error. Parenteau v. Parenteau, 51 R.I. 263, at 266; Revens v. Berth, 147 A. (R.I.) 751; McGowan v. Probate Court of Newport, 27 R.I. 394. In the instant case, the trial justice gave a very careful and comprehensive instruction to the jury on the law governing the evidence and issues of the case.
" This court has held that where the court has correctly instructed the jury as to the law it is not required to repeat such request in the exact language requested by counsel; Blake v. R.I. Co., 32 R.I. 213; and that it is not the privilege of counsel to dictate the words that shall be given in a charge to the jury if the law applicable to the case is correctly stated by the trial justice; McGowan v. Newport Probate Court, 27 R.I. 394, this principle of law is applied in this opinion as to three of defendant's requests and I maintain that it should be applied to his third request. As it appears that the trial justice covered fully and completely in his general charge the matter contained in defendant's third request to charge, his exception to the denial of the request should be overruled under authority of these cases.
Parties are not entitled to have a charge to the jury in their own language. Weisman v. Stone (R.I.), 140 A. 912; Revens v. Berth (R.I.), 147 A. 751; McGarrity v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co., 25 R.I. 269; McGowan v. Court of Probate of Newport, 27 R.I. 394; Blake v. R.I. Co., 32 R.I. 213. It is sufficient if the substance of the request is included in the judge's charge.
While a party has a right to submit requests for instructions we have repeatedly held that it is not error to refuse to give the instructions requested where the substance of them is embodied in the instructions already given. McGarrity v. N.Y.N.H., H.R.R. Co., 25 R.I. 269; McGowan v. Court of Probate of Newport, 27 R.I. 394; Blake v. R.I. Co., 32 R.I. 213. It is sufficient if the instructions state in a clear, concise and simple manner the principles of law applicable to the evidence in the case, and it is unnecessary for the court to repeatedly state its instructions.
We have repeatedly held that it is not error to refuse to charge in the exact language requested. McGarrity v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co., 25 R.I. 269; Blake v. R.I. Co., 32 R.I. 213; McGowan v. Probate Court of Newport, 27 R.I. 394. The exceptions are overruled. The other exceptions stated in the bill were not argued nor briefed and are considered waived.