An examination of the record satisfies us that the trial court committed no prejudicial error in rejecting the evidence of Quin-livan, for that it appeared that the locus in quo had been repaired since the injury and before the examination by the witness.

There was no evidence to support the issue of contributory negligence. The court is not required by statute to give the contentions of the parties. We are of the opinion that, in the instant case,, no prejudicial error resulted in reciting the contentions of plaintiff in her exact language. There was ample evidence to support the verdict. Therefore, we hold that there is

No error.