Court Opinion

ID: 9824195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:30:11.762145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:36.412420
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
It was decided in the original opinion in this case that where instructions were given orally and exceptions saved orally, and'both instructions and exceptions were taken by the stenographer and certified in the case-made, this court could consider the points thus saved. A rehearing wras granted as to this question, and it has been presented again by oral argument and in typewritten briefs.
It is contended with force and ability that exceptions to instructions cannot be saved except,'as provided in section 5795, Comp. Laws 1909, by writing the exception at the end of the instruction. It is necessary to review all the statutes bearing upon this question in order to arrive at a conclusion. The fifth paragraph of section 5794 of Comp. Laws 1909, with reference to the order of procedure upon a trial, is as follows:
“When the evidence is concluded and either party desires special instructions to be given to the jury, such instructions shall be reduced to writing, numbered, and signed by the party, or his attorney asking the same, and delivered to the court. The court shall give general instructions to the jury, which shall be in writing, and be numbered, and signed by the judge, if required by either party.”
' The sixth paragraph of the same section provides that, where special instructions are requested, “the court shall either give such instructions as requested, or positively refuse to do so; or give the instructions with modification in ■ such manner that it shall distinctly appear what instructions were given in *537whole or part, and in like manner those refused, so that either party may except to the instructions as asked for, or as modified, or to the modification, or to the refusal. All instructions given by the court must be signed by the judge; and filed together with those asked for by the parties as a part of the record.” There is an apparent conflict in the fifth and sixth paragraphs. In the fifth it is provided that general instructions “shall be in writing, and numbered, and signed by the judge if required by either party.” The sixth paragraph provides that all instructions given by the court must be signed by the judge; and filed with those asked for by the parties as a part of the record. In order to reconcile the apparent conflict, it is necessary to hold the provisions of the sixth paragraph last quoted to apply only in cases where a written instruction is demanded. A written instruction must be demanded in a civil case before the judge can be required to give it. This is the meaning of the fifth paragraph. To hold otherwise would require this case to be reversed, because instructions were given orally, and would probably reverse a large number of other cases, now pending in this state, in which there is no substantial error. Section 5795, Comp. Laws 1909, is as follows:
“A party excepting to the giving of instructions, or the refusal thereof, shall not be required to file a formal bill of exceptions; but it shall be sufficient to write at the close of each instruction: 'Refused and excepted to,’ or ‘given and excepted to/ which shall be signed by the judge.”
This section, construed in connection with other sections with reference to instructions, can mean only that the exceptions shall be thus marked when the instructions are given in writing.
Section'1937, Comp. Laws 1909, requires the reporter “to take down in shorthand the oral testimony of witnesses, the rulings of the court, the objections made and the exceptions taken, during the trial of all civil and criminal 'actions, and also such other matters as the court shall order.”
*538Section 1942, Comp. Laws 1909, provides for the filing of the shorthand notes with the clerk and makes them a part of the record in the cause.
Section 0074, Comp. Laws 1909, provides for appealing on case-made, and that “the exceptions stated in a case-made shall have the same effect as if they had been reduced to writing, allowed and signed by the judge at the time they were taken.”
A consideration of all these statutes leads to the conclusion that it is not error to give oral instructions where written instructions are not demanded, and that, when the exception to an oral instruction is taken orally and preserved in the case-made by a transcript from the stenographer’s notes, it has the same effect as an exception noted at the close of a written instruction. The stenographer can preserve it, and the exception taken orally calls the attention of the judge to what is claimed as error just as well as the formal writing of “Given and excepted to” calls his attention to error in a written instruction. Usually in ju'ac-tice the oral exception calls his attention more specifically to the alleged error than the written words at the close of a written instruction. The instructions in a civil case are not a part of the judgment roll or record proper (Green v. Incorporated Town of Yeager, 23 Okla. 128, 99 Pac. 906; Menton v. Shuttee, 11 Okla. 381, 67 Pac. 478), and there is no reason why they, together with the proceedings in giving or refusing them, may not be brought up by bill of exceptions or case-made in the same way as other proceedings at the trial. To hold otherwise would result in written instructions being required in all cases, with a consequent loss of time and additional expense. The purpose in view when court reporters were provided for was to expedite business, and to preserve the proceedings so that bills of exceptions would not be necessary at every stage of the trial.
The Indiana statute with reference to giving instructions is practically the same as ours, except that after providing, as is provided in the sixth paragraph of section 5794, Comp. Laws 1909, that the instructions shall be filed as a part of the record, it further provides that they shall not be copied into the record' *539unless there is an appeal. They are not under our practice incorporated into the record except for the purpose of appeal. Section 544 of Burns’ Code of Indiana is identical with section 5795, Comp. Laws 1909. In O. & M. R. Co. v. Dunn, 138 Ind. 18, 36 N. E. 703, 37 N. E. 546, it is held that the method provided in this section for preserving exceptions to instructions is not exclusive, and that the exceptions may be saved by bill of exceptions. To the same effect is Ayres v. Blevins, 38 Ind. App. 101, 63 N. E. 305.
In Burk v. Andis, 98 Ind. 59, one paragraph .of the syllabus is as follows:
“Instructions and exceptions thereto may be brought into the record by bill of exceptions as formerly, notwithstanding sections 533 and 535, R. S. 1881, provide another mode.”
In the course of the opinion the court said:
“The appellee claims that the instructions are not in the record, because they are not signed and filed as prescribed by section 533, R. S. 1881, and because the exceptions were not taken in the manner prescribed by section 535, R. S. 1881. But the instructions and exceptions are in a formal bill of exceptions, signed by the judge and made part of the record. This is sufficient. Hadley v. Atkinson, 84 Ind. 64; Heaton v. White, 85 Ind. 376; Elliott v. Russell, 93 Ind. 536.”
In Hersleb v. Moss, 28 Ind. 354, exactly the same question of practice arose, and on motion for rehearing, just as in this .case, the same question was decided as it is now being decided here. Landers v. Beck, 92 Ind. 49, also decides this question in the same way. It has already been shown that under section 6074 of our statutes the exceptions in a case-made have the same' effect as if preserved by formal bill of- exceptions made at the time. Section 5795 does not abolish the bill of exceptions, but provides' that the party excepting to the giving or refusing of instructions shall not be required to file á formal bill.
The record in this case shows that there was a discussion between court and counsel as to what the instructions should be. Exceptions were saved at the time, and were presented in the motion for new trial and preserved in the case-made. That brings *540them here for review. The conclusion in the opinion heretofore filed was correct, and should be adhered to.
By the Court: It is so ordered.