Opinion ID: 1783930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Charges 16 & 17.

Text: Defendant asserts that the court erred in refusing his requested Charges 16 and 17 which recite: 16. I charge you that if any one of you is not reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, then you cannot find your verdict for the plaintiff. 17. I charge you that if after a full and fair consideration of all the evidence in this case, the mind of any one or more of you is not reasonably satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, then you cannot find your verdict for the plaintiff. In its oral charge the court said: It is perhaps of no purpose for me to tell you, because all of you men know it, that any verdict that is brought in and returned in this case must be agreed to by all twelve of your number. We think there is good purpose to instruct the jury that the verdict must be unanimous. Louisville v. Nashville R. Co. v. Steverson, 220 Ala. 158, 124 So. 205. Nevertheless, the refusal of a charge, though a correct statement of the law, shall not be cause for a reversal on appeal if it appears that the same rule of law was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court's general charge or in charges given at the request of the parties. § 273, Title 7, Code 1940. The rule stated in Charges 16 and 17 was substantially and fairly given to the jury in the court's oral charge, and, therefore, refusal of Charges 16 and 17 was not error. City of Birmingham v. Bowen, 254 Ala. 41, 45, 47 So.2d 174; City of Bessemer v. Clowdus, 261 Ala. 388, 395, 74 So.2d 259.