¶1 The narration by a number of witnesses of what Curtis Smith told them about the burning was competent as corroborative of *497 Smith’s testimony given on the trial, and the court so limited its use at the time of its admission. It is now the rule of practice with us that when testimony is admitted, not as substantive evidence, but in corroboration or contradiction, and that fact is stated by the court when it is admitted, it will not be ground for exception that the judge does not in his charge again instruct the jury specifically upon the nature of such evidence, unless his attention is called to the matter by a prayer for instruction; nor will it be ground for exception that evidence competent for some purpose, but not for all purposes, is admitted generally, unless the appellant asks, at the time of its admission, that its purpose be restricted to the use for which it is competent. S. v. Steele, 190 N. C., 506, 130 S. E., 308; Rule 21, Supreme Court, 200 N. C., 827. The record discloses no infraction of the rule, or noncompliance with the decisions on the subject. S. v. Steele, supra.
¶2 The form of the indictment would seem to be sufficient. S. v. Farmer, 104 N. C., 887, 10 S. E., 563. The ownership of the house is properly laid in the defendant and Campbell as tenants in common. S. v. Haddock, 3 N. C., 162; S. v. Harbert, 185 N. C., 760, 118 S. E., 6. The fact that these same parties own other houses in like capacity, is not ground for demurrer or quashal. S. v. Sprouse, 150 N. C., 860, 64 S. E., 900; S. v. Daniel, 121 N. C., 574, 28 S. E., 255; S. v. McCarter, 98 N. C., 637, 4 S. E., 553. Sufficient matter appears on the face of the indictment to enable the court to proceed to judgment. C. S., 4623; S. v. Gallimore, 24 N. C., 372; S. v. Green, 151 N. C., 729, 66 S. E., 564. And the defendant could not be tried again for the same offense. S. v. Prince, 63 N. C., 529. His plea of former conviction would easily avail in case of a second prosecution. S. v. King, 195 N. C., 621, 143 S. E., 140; S. v. Freeman, 162 N. C., 594, 77 S. E., 780. See, also, S. v. Beal, 202 N. C., 266, 162 S. E., 561, 80 A. L. R., 1101, and note.
¶3 There was no error in modifying the defendant’s prayer with respect to the testimony of an accomplice. S. v. Ashburn, 187 N. C., 717, 122 S. E., 833. The charge as given was all the defendant was entitled to as a matter of law, and the judge is not required to instruct the jury, except on the law of the case. S. v. Haney, 19 N. C., 390.
¶4 A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to the principles of law applicable and the decisions apposite The verdict and judgment will be upheld.
¶5 No error.