¶1The request for instruction made by the libellee was rightly refused. It did not relate to any matter involved in the issue before the jury, or in regard to which the libellee could properly ask for instructions. Nor was it material that the jury should be informed concerning the course to be pursued in the event that they again returned into court without being able to agree on a verdict. We can see no foundation for the suggestion that the libellee’s case may have been prejudiced by the refusal of the court to give irrelevant and immaterial instructions. Exceptions overruled.
95 Mass. 411
Foote v. Foote
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1866
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1866-11-15
Libel for divorce for adultery. The cause was tried before Gray, J., by a jury, who, after deliberating for two hours, returned into court for the first time, and stated that they were unable to agree upon a verdict; and, being asked by the court whether they wished instructions in matter of law, said they did not; and received further instructions from the court, to which no exception was taken.
Decided 1866-11-15