Arkansas-Denning Coal Co. v. Yocum

• Decision Date: 02 April 1917
• Docket Number: 279
• Citation: 194 S.W. 34,128 Ark. 291
• Parties: THE ARKANSAS-DENNING COAL COMPANY v. YOCUM
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

194 S.W. 34

128 Ark. 291

THE ARKANSAS-DENNING COAL COMPANY v. YOCUM

No. 279

Supreme Court of Arkansas

April 2, 1917

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District; James Cochran Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

J. H Evans, for appellants.

It was error to refuse to give the instructions in writing when requested to do so. Art. 7, § 23, of the Constitution is mandatory, not directory merely. 47 Ark. 407; 34 Id 257; 95 Ind. 170; 51 Ark. 177; 13 Id. 705; 72 Id. 398; 125 Ark. 248.

Partain & Crocker, for appellees.

No prejudice resulted from the failure to reduce the instructions to writing. 47 Ark. 407; 188 S.W. 407; 51 Ark 181.

No exceptions were saved.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Various plaintiffs below, appellees here, brought separate suits before a justice of the peace against the defendants on account for labor. Nonsuits were taken in the circuit court in all except six of the cases, and these were consolidated and tried by a jury. After the testimony was adduced tending to support the contentions of the respective parties, the record recites: "The defendants, prior to the giving of the instructions by the court to the jury, asked the court to give the instructions with reference to the body of the case in writing. The court failed to grant said request of defendants and instructed the jury orally over the request of the defendant to instruct in writing. The court required the court stenographer to take down the instructions of the court to the jury which were delivered orally to the jury. The court stenographer took down in shorthand the instructions of the court, but they were not transcribed in longhand by the stenographer and read to the jury by the court. The only instructions given by the court in the case to the jury were oral. The defendant requested certain instructions of the court in writing which were by the court refused."

There was a verdict and also a judgment for the appellees. The second ground of the motion for a new trial is that "the court erred in refusing requests of defendants, through their counsel, J. H. Evans, to reduce his instructions in the case to writing, and erred in giving the instructions orally after being requested by J. H. Evans, counsel for defendants, to instruct in writing." The court overruled the motion.

OPINION

WOOD, J., (after stating the facts).

The appellants contend that the case should be reversed because of the refusal of the trial judge to...