10 A.2d 228 | N.H. | 1939
The emergency doctrine was clearly applicable to the situation disclosed by the evidence. In this respect the present case is not distinguishable from Kardasinski v. Koford,
"It has always been understood here that the duty to fully and correctly instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the case rests upon the court. The presiding justice should, of his own motion, give a proper charge. . . . But the reciprocal duty of counsel (Gardner v. Company,
The present case comes squarely within the above stated principles of the Burke case. Plaintiff's counsel, by his exception, called the attention of the court to an important omission from the charge "in season for the correction of the error." Having thus brought the matter to the attention of the Presiding Justice, plaintiff's exception to the court's failure to charge was properly taken and must be sustained.
New trial.
All concurred. *406