¶1 I concur except in the proposition that “if defendant had offered evidence tending to show *56 one stack of straw was worthless, hut I think that issues that the straw was of no value” then plaintiff’s refused instruction should be refused. There is evidence that is sufficiently covered by this instruction leaving' it to defendant to ask a. more specific instruction if he so desires.
205 Mo. App. 49
217 S.W 538
Campbell & Davis v. Moll
Decided January 14, 1920
Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1920-01-14
— Hon. Sterling H. McCarty, Judge. (1) When the court gave instruction No. 2, for the defendant, he correctly declared the law on the burning of the second stack of straw; but when he refused the plaintiffs instruction I or “A,” he left the jury to guess and grope in the dark as to the other two stacks, in fact entirely misinstructed; refusing a proper instruction asked by the plaintiff. Pepper v. Railroad, 98 Mo. App. 291; Knapp v. Kelly, 153 Mo.
Reversed and remanded · Decided 1920-01-14