"As the trial judge sees and hears the witnesses, error in his application of the rule must be very manifest before the exercise of his discretion will be interfered with." Id. Further, "such a charge is appropriate only where the party is the sole witness testifying in his behalf," which was not the case here. Stolz v. Shulman, 191 Ga. App. 864, 869 (3) ( 383 S.E.2d 559) (1989). Further, we consider the jury instructions as a whole in determining whether the trial court committed error.

The jury was otherwise properly instructed on damages, and there is no indication from the present record that the jury's award may have been affected by a misapprehension as to tax consequences. Compare Stolz v. Shulman, 191 Ga. App. 864, 866-867 ( 383 S.E.2d 559) (1989) (not error to instruct jury on tax consequences concerning the award where tax evidence admitted in the case required the clarifying instructions). Judgment affirmed. Sognier, C. J., and McMurray, P. J., concur.

'" (Emphasis supplied.) Stolz v. Shulman, 191 Ga. App. 864, 869 (3) ( 383 S.E.2d 559) and cases cited therein. Examination of the record reveals appellant Kimberly Renew was the only party plaintiff who testified, although other witnesses testified for the plaintiffs.

Whether those acts constituted part performance was a question of fact. Smith v. Cox, 247 Ga. 563, 565 ( 277 S.E.2d 512) (1981); Stolz v. Shulman, 191 Ga. App. 864 (6) ( 383 S.E.2d 559) (1989). Accordingly, we find no error with the denial of appellants' motion for directed verdict.