Cited by

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Bailey v. Grand Forks Lumber Co. 107 Minn. 192 , ; Hedlund v. Minneapolis Street Ry.

In whatever respect the instructions may be said to be indefinite, or not sufficiently specific, the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , applies.

Moreover, no exception was taken on the trial to the portion of the charge now criticised, which, we hold, was necessary in order to raise the question now under consideration, under the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and subsequent cases developing its application.

The record does not justify the conclusion that the instructions were the result of inadvertent or unintentional misstatements on the *143 part of the trial court; hence the instructions do not fall within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Kramer v. Northwestern Elevator Co. 97 Minn. 44 , ; Applebee v. Perry, 87 Minn. 242 , .

While this Tule, first adopted in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , does not apply to instructions on a controlling proposition of law, it seems just to apply it to the erroneous instruction in this case.

Sturm v. N. W. Mills Co. 114 Minn. 420 , ; Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Waligora v. St.

We have concluded that this failure to employ with strict accuracy all the words that were to make a complete and precise statement fell within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

The ease is within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

To the circumstances thus presented we think the rule in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , should be applied.

It is familiar, however, that in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , this court construed this statute reasonably, so as to render unsuccessful the familiar quest for technical error.

There is no subject for the predicate “were relied.” To this defect we have no hesitation in applying the doctrine of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

Stein *455 bauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

The case falls within the rule laid down in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

The most that can be said on this subject is that the charge was indefinite, and the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , applies.

No exceptions were taken at the time, and the court’s attention was not directed to the matter; but the point was raised on motion for a new trial, and is assigned as error in this court, and the question presented does not come within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

See Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

d a plainly proper rule, which has been repeatedly followed, viz.: “The firmly established practice in this state requiring counsel on the trial of an action to call attention to obviously unintentional misstatements and verbal errors in the; charge of the court to the jury, if deemed at ail likely to be misleading, was not abrogated by the passage of Laws 1901, c. 113,” etc. Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

It, however, affirmatively appears upon the face of the instruction that it is clear and deliberate, and not the result of any inadvertence or misunderstanding of the evidence on the part of the trial court; hence it does not come within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , .

The instruction, then, in any event, falls within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , , and cannot be here urged as a ground for a new trial.

urrounding circumstances and the attendant facts are such as to compel the belief in the minds of the jury that falsehood, instead of truth, was spoken.” No exception to this part of the charge was taken at the time, but it was duly assigned as error on the motion for a new trial.- The instruction related to a controlling proposition of law, and the rule stated and applied in Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, , and subsequent cases, has no application.

The alleged error falls within the rule of Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274, and the defendant cannot here urge it.