¶1These exceptions are groundless. The instructions were strictly correct in point of law. Delano v. Bartlett, 6 Cush. 364. It is true that the judge did not adopt the exact language of the legal proposition which the plaintiff’s counsel asked him to state to the jury, nor was he bound to do so, but he embodied the substance of it in his charge, coupling it however with other legal and appropriate instructions, which were adapted to the facts in proof. We cannot sustain these exceptions unless we are prepared to say that it is error for a judge to refuse to give instructions on matters of law in the precise form in which they are put by counsel. It is obvious that the adoption of any such rule would be productive of mischief. Abstract propositions often mislead. It is the function of practical jurisprudence to apply rules to cases in such manner that the common mind may be led to just results. Exceptions overruled.
78 Mass. 467
Morris v. Bowman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided March 15, 1859
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1859-03-15
Action of contract on a promissory note. Answer, want of consideration. At the trial in the superior court of Suffolk at July term 1857 before Nelson, C. J., the plaintiff put in the note, and rested. The defendant then called witnesses who testified that there was no consideration for the note, and the plaintiff in rebuttal called other witnesses who testified that there was.
Decided 1859-03-15