It  is  well  settled  that  where  the  whole  of  a  contract  is
in  writing  and  unambiguous,  verbal  testimony  to  con-
tradict or  explain  it  is  inadmissible.  It  is  then  a  ques-
tion of  construction  for  the  court,  but  where  the  contro-
versy turns  upon  the  meaning:  of  parties  to  a  verbal
agreement,  or  where  it  is  part  verbal  and  part  written
and  there  is  room  for  dispute,  or  if  the  instrument  is
ambiguous,  parol  evidence  is  admissible,  and  it  is  proper
for  the  court  to  leave  to  the  jury  the  question  of  fact,
what  was  the  agreement  of  the  parties  in  relation  to
such  matter.  Islay  v.  Stewart^  20  N.  C,  160;  Cttm-
ming  v.  Barber,  99  N.  C,  332.
The  verbal  evidence  and  the  correspondence  consti-


678  IN  THE  SUPREME  COURT.  [122


SiMB  V.  Lindsay.
tuted  the  evidence  from  which  the  jury's  duty  was  to
find  the  truth  of  the  contention  in  this  respect.  We  do
not  think  that  the  charge  of  the  Judge  was  subject  to
the  criticism  that  if  the  jury  believed  one  witness  that
they  should  find  for  the  plaintiffs.  The  charge  seems
full,  explicit  and  impartial.  As  the  other  prayers  and
exceptions  hinged  mainly  upon  the  disposition  of  the
main  questions,  we  see  no  need  to  consider  them  sepa-
rately. They  were  in  many  respects  put  out  of  the  case
by  the  verdict  of  the  jury.
No  error.
CARRIE  SIMS,  by  her  next  friend,  v.  ROBERT  LINDSAY  et  al.
