Tinney v. Endicott — 5 Cal. 102

Majority

p. 102

CARLETON K. TINNEY and WILLIAM S. LITTLE, Respondents, v. WILLIAM H. ENDICOTT, Appellant.

Headnote

A rulo oí Court requiring counsel to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer before the argument is closed, to the jury, docs not operate where the cause is submitted without argument.

Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Nevada County.

E. W. F. Sloan and Wm. M. Stewart, for Appellant.

Alexander Anderson and Dunn & Smith, for Respondents.

No briefs on file.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The third instruction asked for by defendant’s counsel, ought to have been given. The reason given for the refusal is, that a rule of the

p. 103

Court requires counsel “to file and submit to the Court any instructions they may offer, before the argument is closed, to the jury.” But it appears by the statement that the cause was submitted without argument, so that there was no room for the operation of the rule.

For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.