Instructions

In the Law of Agency. Orders given by a principal to his agent in relation to the business of his agency. The agent is bound to obey the instructions he has received, and when he neglects so to do he is responsible for the consequences, unless he is justified by matter of necessity. 4 Bin. (Pa.) 361; 1 Livermore, Ag.. 368. See "Agent." — ^

Orders given by a principal to his agent in relation to the business of his agency. The agent is bound to obey the Instructions he has received and when he neglects so to do he is responsible for the consequences, unless he is ju.stifled by matter of necessity; Dusar v. Perit, 4 Biun. (Pa.) 361; 1 Liverm. Ag. 368. See Agent. In Practice. The statement of a cause of action given by a client to his attorney, and which, where such is the practice, are sent to his pleader to put into legal form of a declaration. Warren, Law Stud. 284. Instructions to counsel are their indemnity for any aspersions they may make cu the opposite party; but attorneys who have a just regard to their own reputation will be cautiou.s, even xmder instructions, not to make any unnecessary attack nix>n a party or witness. For such unjustifiable conduct the counsel will be held responsible. Eunom. Dial. 2, § 43, p. 132. For a form of instructions, see 3 Cfiiitty, Pr. 117, 120, n. Also the written or oral address of the presiding judge, in jury trials, delivered usually at the close of the arguments of counsel to the jury, informing them of the law applicable to the cause at trial, and their duties thereunder. A. & B. Bncyc. An omission to give instructions is not assignable as error where no request was made therefor in the court below; State v. Jackson, 112 N. C. 851, 17 S. E. 149; Bailey V. State, 26 Tex. App. 706, 9 S. W. 270; Duncombe v. Powers, 75 la. 186, 39 N. W. 261; Stuckslager V. Neel, 123 Pa. 63, 16 Atl. 94; State V. Johnson, 37 Minn. 493, 35 N. W. 373; People V. Fice, 97 Cal. 459, 32 Pac. 531; and errors or Inaccuracies in charging the jury cannot be considered on appeal unless duly excepted to on the trial; State v. Hair, 37 Minn. 351, 34 N. W. 893; Georgia Pac. B. Co. V. West, 66 Miss. 310, 6 South. 207; Paddleford V. Cook, 74 la. 433, 38 N. W. 137; Frauenthal v. Bridgeman, 60 Ark. 348, 7 S. W. 888; Schroeder v. Rlnehard, 25 Neb. 76, refusal to give instructions not excepted to cannot be complained of on appeal; Burns V. People, 120 111. 282, 18 N. E. 650. Where a charge correctly states the law of the case, a judgment will not be reversed because the charge was abstract: Bonner v. State, 97 Ala. 47, 12 South. 408; State v. King, 111 Mo. 576, 20 S. W. 299; but an instruction is wrong which states hypothetically facts as to which there is no evidence: Jackson y7 State, 88 Ga. 784, 15 S. E. 677; State v. Brackett, 45 La. Ann. 40, 12 South. 129. It is not error to recall a jury and charge them again at their request; Gaston v. State, 31 Tex. Or. R. 304, 20 S. W. 585. The improper admission of evidence is cured by an instruction not to consider the evidence so admitted; Shepard v. Ry. Co., 77 la. 54, 41 N. W. 564; Durant v. Mining Co., 97 Mo. 62, 10 S. W. 484; Dismukes v. State, 83 Ala. 287, 3 South. 671, Refusal to give correct instructions is not error if the court has already given them on the same point; Bener v. Edgington, 76 la, 105, 40 N. W. 117; People V. Madden, 76 Cal. 521, 18 Pac. 402; Beck v. State, 76 Ga. 452; Louisville, N. A. & G. Ry. Co. V. Wright, 115 Ind. 394, 16 N. E. 145, 17 N. E, 584, 7 Am. St, Rep. 432; Va. Midland R. Co. V. White, 84 Va. 498, 5 S. E. 57:i, 10 Am. St. Rep. 874; or where given in different words; Grand Truuk Ry. Gp. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408, 12 Sui). Ct. 679, 30 L. Ed. 485; Anthony v, R, Co., 132 U. S. 172, 10 Sup. Ct 53, 33 L. Ed. 301. The principles governing the subject of peremptory instructions were clearly stated by Harlan, J,, in Travelers’ Ins. Co, v. Randolph, 78 Fed, 754, 24 C. C. A. 305: “It Is well settled that If, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, the court refuses to give a peremptory Instruction for the defendant, such refusal cannot be assigned for error if the defendant does not stand upon the case made by the plaintiff, but Introduces evidence in support of his defence" (citing Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cummings, 106 U. S. 700, 1 Sup. Ct. 493, 27 L. Ed. 2C6; Accident Ins. Co. V. Crandal, 120 U. S. 627, 7 Sup. Ct. 685, 30 L. Ed. 740; Union Pac, R. Co. v. Callaghan, 161 U. S. 91, 16 Sup. Ct. 493, 40 It, Bd. 628). “But the failure of the defendant, at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, to ask a peremptory instruction will not, of itself, preclude such a motion at the close of the whole evidence.” Travelers’ Ins, Co, v. Randolph, 78 Fed. 759, 24 C. C. A. 305. “A mere scintilla of evidence In favor of one party does not entitle him of right to go to the Jury” (citing Schuylkill & D. Imp, & R. Co. v. Munson, 14 Wall. tU. S.] 442, 448, 20 L. Bd. 867). Nor can it “be withdrawn from the consideration of the jury simply because, in the judgment of the court, there Is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the party asking a peremptory instruction. If the facts are entirely undisputed or uncontradicted, or if, upon any issue dependent upon facts, there is no evidence whatever In favor of one party, or, what is the same thing, if the evidence Is so slight as to justify the court In regarding the proof as substantially all one way, then the court may direct a verdict according to its view of tho law arising upon such a case. If a verdict is rendered contrary to the evidence, the remedy of the losing party is a motion for a new trial.” 78 Fed. 759, 24 C. O. A. 805. upon whom the burden of proof rests, to reqhire the submission of the case to the Jury; that where there is a real conflict of evidence on a question of fact, whatever may be the opinion of the judge who tries the case as to the value of that evidence, be must leave the consideration of it for the decision of the Jury; that where there are material and substantial facts which, if credited by the Jury, would in law justify a verdict in favor of one party, it is not error for the trial judge to refuse a peremptory Instruction to the jury; that it is not a ’proper standard to settle for a peremptory instruction that the court, after weighing the evidence in the case, would, upon motion for a new trial, set aside the verdict,* and that the court ‘may, and often should, set aside a verdict, when clearly against the weight of the evidence, where it would not bo justified in directing a verdict’; that, upon reason and authority, ’there is a difference between the legal discretion of the court to set aside a verdict as against the weight of evidence, and that obligation which tho court has to withdraw a case from the Jury, or direct a verdict for Insufllciency of evidence*; and that ’in the latter case It must be so insufficient in fact as to be Insufficient in law.* ** 78 Fed. 760, 24 C. C. A. 305 (citing Mt. Adams & E. P. Inclined R. Co. v. Lowery, 74 Fed. 463, 20 C. C. A. 696). In French Law. The means used and formality employed to prepare a case for trial. It is generally applied to criminal cases, and is then called criminal instruction; it is then defined the acts and proceedings which tend to prove positively a crime or delict, in' order to Inflict on the guilty person the punishment which he deserves.

Orders to an agent in relation to ployment; written statements of fact for the etc., in the prosecution and defense of actions as to the law ^nd their duty in a cause about them for a verdict

In common law. Orders given by a principal to his agent in relation to the business of his agency. In practice. <A detailed statement of the facts and circumstances constituting a cause of action made bya client to his attorney for the purpose of enabling the latter to draw a proper declaration or procure it to be done by a pleader.

comm. lau, contracts. Orders given by a principal to his agent, in relation to the business of his agency. ‘The agent is bound to obey the instructions he has received, and when he neglects so to do, he is responsible for the consequences, unless he is justified by matter of necessity. 4 Binn. R. 361; 1 Liverm. Agency, 368. —