INSTRUCTIONS. Orders given by a prin cipal 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 ; Dusar v. Perit, 4 Binn. (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 indem nity for any aspersions they may make cm the opposite party; but attorneys who have a just regard to their own reputation will be cautious, even under instructions, not to make any unnecessary attack upon a party or witness. For such unjustifiable conduct the counsel will be held responsible. Eunom. Dial. 2, § 43, p. 132. For a form of instruc tions, see 3 Chitty, 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. & E..Encyc.
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; bun combe v. Powers, 75 Ia. 185, 39 N. W. 261; Stuckslager v. Neel, 123 Pa. 53, 16 Atl. 94; State T. 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. R. Co. v. West, 66 Miss. 310, 6 South. 207 ; Paddle ford v. Cook, 74 Ia. 433, 38 N. W. 137 ; Frauenthal v. Bridgeman, 50 Ark. 348, 7 S. W. 388; Schroeder v. Rinehard, 25 Neb. 75, 40 N. W. 593 ; Chemical Co. of Canton v. Johnson, 101 N. C. 223, 7 S. E. 770, 775; a refusal to give instructions not excepted to cannot be complained of on appeal ; Burns v. People, 126 Ill. 282, 18 N. E. 550. 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 v. State, 88 Ga. 784, 15 S. E. 677; State v. Brackett, 45 La. Ann. 46, 12 South. 129. It is not error to recall a jury 'and charge them again at their request ; Caston v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. R. 304, 20 S. W. 585. The improper admission of evidence is cured by an instruc tion not to consider the evidence so admit ted ; Shepard v. Ry. Co., 77 Ia. 54, 41 N. W. 564; Durant v. Mining Co., 97 Mo. 62, 10 S. W. 484; Dismukes v. State, 83 Ala. 287, 3 South. 671a Refusal to give correct instruc tions is not error if the court has 'already given them on the same point; Bener v. Edgington, 76 Ia. 105, 40 N. W. 117; People v. Madden, 76 Cal. 521, 18 Pac., 402; Beck v. State, 76 Ga. 452; Louisville, N. A. & C. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 115 Ind. 394, 16 N. E. 145, 17 N. E. 584, 7 Am. St. Rep. 432 ; Va. Mid land R. Co. v. White, 84 Va. 498, 5 S. E. 573, 10 Am. St. Rep. 874 ; or where given in dif ferent words ; Grand Trunk Ry. Co. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408, 12 Sup. Ct. 679, 36 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. Ran dolph, 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 per emptory 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" (cit ing Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Cummings, 106 U. S. 700, 1 Sup. Ct. 493, 27 L. Ed. 266 ; Accident Ins. Co. v. Crandal, 120 U. S. 527, 7 Sup. Ct. 685, 30 L. Ed. 740 ; Union Paz. R. Co. v. Callaghan, 161 IL S. 91, 16 Sup. Ct. 493, 40 L. Ed. 628). "But the failure of the de fendant, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, to ask a peremptory instruction will not, of itself, pre clude such a motion at the close of the whole evi dence." Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Randolph, 78 Fed. 759, 24 C. C. A. 305.