Case ID: minn_28/html/0362-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilfillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. M. D. Wright vs. William L. Ames.
    October 14, 1881.
    Charge — Request to repeat Instruction. — The trial court, having fully, clearly and correctly instructed the jury as to the law of the ease, is not bound to repeat the instruction at the request of a party.
    Evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict.
    Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Ramsey county, Brill, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.
    
      John B. é W. H. Sanborn, for appellant.
    
      Geo. W. Walsh and John W. Willis, for respondent.
   Gilfillan, C. J.

There was in this case such a conflict in the evidence that it was for the jury to determine which evidence to accept, and to decide the fact accordingly. In its general charge the court, instructed the jury fully, clearly and correctly upon the degree of negligence which would render defendant liable, and it was not bound to repeat it upon request of a party, even though the request had been correct as to the law. It was no error, therefore, to refuse defendant’s second and sixth requests.

Order affirmed.