Opinion ID: 1542243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Denial of Request to Charge.

Text: Appellants state in their brief that they presented twenty-three requested instructions which the court refused to give but possibly covered the last five in its charge. The sole statement, in the brief, concerning the other instructions not conceded to be covered in the charge as given is as follows: By refusing to give the first nineteen instructions, the Court ignored the defendants' theory of the case  indeed, ignored the law. Had the Court given these requested instructions, the case would have been understood by the jury. Lack of space compels us to forego a seriatim consideration of requests; however, as the Court reads the unfair and prejudicial charge given, the Court's errors in refusing them will become obvious. The passage just quoted clearly amounts to no more than that the court committed errors in refusing nineteen requests. Where or what those errors were is not even suggested. This Court is left to seek for errors which counsel do not or cannot point out. Such a presentation offers nothing here for review. If counsel wish this Court to pass upon errors in any of these requests it is their prerequisite duty to point out specifically those errors and to state the reasons why such are errors.