The  issues  were:  Was  plaintiff  about  to  dispose  of  his
property  with  intent  to  defraud  his  creditors ;  or  did  defendants
have  any  reasonable  ground  to  believe  that  plaintiff  was  about
to  dispose  of  his  property  with  intent  to  defraud  his  creditors?
Defendants  did  not,  by  a  motion  to  direct  a  verdict,  question  the
sufficiency  of  plaintiff's  ease  to  go  to  the  jury,  and  made  no  re-
quest for  instructions.  After  the  verdict  was  returned  in  favor
of  plaintiff,  defendants  excepted  to  certain  instructions,  and  tlie
substance  of  the  complaint  is  that  the  instructions  are  not  com-
prehensive enough ;  that  the  court  on  its  own  motion  should  have
enlarged  on  the  instructions  so  that  they  would  have  more  fully
explained  the  issues  to  the  jury,  and  what  evidence  should  be
considered  in  determinii^  the  issues.  It  is  not  claimed  that  the
instructions  given  do  not  correctly  state  the  law.  Appellants
complain  that  the  instructions  were  incomplete,  and  failed  to
give  the  jury  an  intelligent  idea  of  the  questions  to  be  decided ;
and  that  it  was  error  to  fail  to  instruct  with  reasonable  fullness.
804  Shippley  v.  Gremmels.  [192  Iowa

without  request;  that  the  jury  should  have  been  told  that  the
plaintiff  had  the  burden  of  proving  the  negative  proposition  that
he  was  not  about  to  dispose  of  his  property  with  intent  to  defraud
his  creditors,  and  other  matters  of  that  character ;  that  the  jury
should  have  been  told  that  it  was  not  necessary  that  the  informa-
tion upon  which  Gremmels  sued  out  the  attachment  be  true,  if
he  act^d  in  good  faith  and  with  reasonable  care;  that,  if  the
grounds  alleged  were  true,  in  fact,  suing  out  the  attachment  was
not  wrongful,  even  though  Gremmels  had  no  knowledge  of  its
truth.
