Cited by

But a district court cannot, “in charging the jury, single out and give undue prominence and emphasis to particular items of evidence, or circumstances, favorable to one of the parties only.” Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400, 402, 123 N.W.

Further, a district court must not, “in charging the jury, single out and give undue prom inence and emphasis to partic ular items of evidence, or 12 circumstances, favorable to one of the parties only.” Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400, 402, 123 N.W.

The one case cited by defendant which directly discusses this question states the rule: “The trial judge must not, in charging the jury, single out and give undue prominence and emphasis to particular items of evidence, or circumstances, favorable to one of the parties only.” Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400, 402 , .

by Louisa Reek, the old lady, is true, is correct, then, I charge you to find a negative answer to this question.” It is contended that this instruction singles out a Avitness in violation of decisions such as Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , ; Goodhue Farmers W. H. Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; Kerling v. G. W. Van Dusen & Co. 109 Minn. 481 , .

Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 *99 Minn. 400, ; State v. Jones, 126 Minn. 45 , ; State v. Dallas, 145 Minn. 92 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

And see Esterly-Hoppin Co. v. Burns, 135 Minn. 1 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; 5 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Inc. v. Rosenberger, 156 Minn. 487 , , where the omission was upon a pivotal issue directly made by the pleadings, and Kincaid v. Junkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , , is certainly not in point.

This case does not come within the rule of Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; Esterly-Hoppin Co. v. Burns, 135 Minn. 1 , ; Sassen v. Haegle, 125 Minn. 441 , , 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1176.

Steinbauer v. Stone, 85 Minn. 274 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , .

In giving this instruction, the court is said to have committed prejudicial error under the doctrine laid down in State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; Geddes v. Van Rhee, 126 Minn. 517 , .

State v. Nestaval, 72 Minn. 415 , 75 N W. 725; Harriott v. Holmes, 77 Minn. 245 , ; Goodhue F. W. Co. v. Davis, 81 Minn. 210 , ; State v. Hoy, 83 Minn. 286 , ; State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461 , ; Taubert v. Taubert, 103 Minn. 247 , ; Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; State v. Almos, 122 Minn. 479 , ; Gran v. Gran, 129 Minn. 531 , ; State v. Sailor, 130 Minn. 84 , .

Kincaid v. Jungkunz, 109 Minn. 400 , ; Robertson v. Benton, 88 Minn. 151 , ; Melges v. Duluth Brewing & Malting Co. 118 Minn. 139 , ; State v. Halverson, 103 Minn. 265 , , 14 L.R.A.(N.S.)

This method of treating evidence has just lately been fully considered by us in Kincaid v. Jungkunz, supra, page 450, .