give instruction in Arkansas

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1951Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Horton v. Jackson, 87 Ark. 528 , 113 S. W. 45 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 .’ “In the case of Lowmack v. Slate, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 , it was held (headnote 6): ‘Where accused desired an instruction on a particular issue not covered by the instructions given, he should request a correct instruction thereon.’ ” Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 .

1951Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Horton v. Jackson, 87 Ark. 528 , 113 S. W. 45 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 .’ “In the case of Lowmack v. Slate, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 , it was held (headnote 6): ‘Where accused desired an instruction on a particular issue not covered by the instructions given, he should request a correct instruction thereon.’ ” Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1983Riceland cites three Texas cases [Fetzer v. Haralson, 147 S.W. 290 (Tex. Civ.

1978In Russell v. State, 240 Ark. 97 , 398 S.W. 2d 213 , we thoroughly discussed when it is proper for a court to give this instruction, and when it is improper.

1978In Russell v. State, 240 Ark. 97 , 398 S.W. 2d 213 , we thoroughly discussed when it is proper for a court to give this instruction, and when it is improper.

1972Smith v. Alexander, 245 Ark. 567 , 433 S. W. 2d 157 .

1972Smith v. Alexander, 245 Ark. 567 , 433 S. W. 2d 157 .

1971This court held, in the case of Saddler v. Saddler, 16 Ark. 628 : ‘That it is error in the court to give an instruction not warranted by the testimony, and which may mislead the jury.’ See Worthington v. Card [Curd], 15 Ark. 492 [491].” In Casteel v. State, 73 Ark. 152 , 83 S. W. 953 , relied on by Brewer, the testimony was considerably different from that in the case at bar.

1971This court held, in the case of Saddler v. Saddler, 16 Ark. 628 : ‘That it is error in the court to give an instruction not warranted by the testimony, and which may mislead the jury.’ See Worthington v. Card [Curd], 15 Ark. 492 [491].” In Casteel v. State, 73 Ark. 152 , 83 S. W. 953 , relied on by Brewer, the testimony was considerably different from that in the case at bar.

1971This court held, in the case of Saddler v. Saddler, 16 Ark. 628 : ‘That it is error in the court to give an instruction not warranted by the testimony, and which may mislead the jury.’ See Worthington v. Card [Curd], 15 Ark. 492 [491].” In Casteel v. State, 73 Ark. 152 , 83 S. W. 953 , relied on by Brewer, the testimony was considerably different from that in the case at bar.

1963Hays v. State, 219 Ark. 301 , 241 S. W. 2d 266 .

1963Hays v. State, 219 Ark. 301 , 241 S. W. 2d 266 .

1962Stinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Trotter v. State, 215 Ark. 121 , 219 S. W. 2d 636 .

1962Stinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Trotter v. State, 215 Ark. 121 , 219 S. W. 2d 636 .

1962Stinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Trotter v. State, 215 Ark. 121 , 219 S. W. 2d 636 .

1962Stinkard v. State, 193 Ark. 765 , 103 S. W. 2d 50 ; Trotter v. State, 215 Ark. 121 , 219 S. W. 2d 636 .

1955In view of this testimony, and other in the record, the case of Warren v. Hale, 203 Ark. 608 , 158 S. W. 2d 51 , is authority for the Court to give the instruction herein challenged.

1955In view of this testimony, and other in the record, the case of Warren v. Hale, 203 Ark. 608 , 158 S. W. 2d 51 , is authority for the Court to give the instruction herein challenged.

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1948Other cases which have approved the rule that it is not the duty of the court to give an instruction on any point which an appellant desires to present to the jury unless he asks a correct instruction thereon are Allison v. State, 74 Ark. 444 , 86 S. W. 409 ; Jackson v. State, 92 Ark. 71 , 122 S. W. 101 ; Lucius v. State, 116 Ark. 260 , 170 S. W. 1016 ; Atkinson v. State, 133 Ark. 341 , 202 S. W. 709 ; Lowmack v. State, 178 Ark. 928 , 12 S. W. 2d 909 ; Pate v. State, 206 Ark. 693 , 177 S. W. 2d 933 ; Cooley v. State, ante, p. 503, 211 S. W. 2d 114 .

1943Carothers v. State, 75 Ark. 574 , 88 S. W. 585 ; Johnson v. State, 84 Ark. 95 , 104 S. W. 929 .

1943Carothers v. State, 75 Ark. 574 , 88 S. W. 585 ; Johnson v. State, 84 Ark. 95 , 104 S. W. 929 .

1943Carothers v. State, 75 Ark. 574 , 88 S. W. 585 ; Johnson v. State, 84 Ark. 95 , 104 S. W. 929 .

1943Carothers v. State, 75 Ark. 574 , 88 S. W. 585 ; Johnson v. State, 84 Ark. 95 , 104 S. W. 929 .

1942Tlie opinion in the case of Holland v. State, 198 Ark. 933 , 132 S. W. 2d 190 , quoted from the ease of Daniels v. State, 186 Ark. 255 , 53 S. W. 2d 231 , as follows: “ ‘Another instruction was refused which told the jury they could not convict unless the offense had been established to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence.

1942Tlie opinion in the case of Holland v. State, 198 Ark. 933 , 132 S. W. 2d 190 , quoted from the ease of Daniels v. State, 186 Ark. 255 , 53 S. W. 2d 231 , as follows: “ ‘Another instruction was refused which told the jury they could not convict unless the offense had been established to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence.

1942Tlie opinion in the case of Holland v. State, 198 Ark. 933 , 132 S. W. 2d 190 , quoted from the ease of Daniels v. State, 186 Ark. 255 , 53 S. W. 2d 231 , as follows: “ ‘Another instruction was refused which told the jury they could not convict unless the offense had been established to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence.

1942Tlie opinion in the case of Holland v. State, 198 Ark. 933 , 132 S. W. 2d 190 , quoted from the ease of Daniels v. State, 186 Ark. 255 , 53 S. W. 2d 231 , as follows: “ ‘Another instruction was refused which told the jury they could not convict unless the offense had been established to the exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence.

1929The judgment in the case of Hamilton National Bank v. Emigh, 127 Ark. 545 , 192 S. W. 913 , was reversed because of the refusal of the court to give an instruction reading as follows: “4.

1929The judgment in the case of Hamilton National Bank v. Emigh, 127 Ark. 545 , 192 S. W. 913 , was reversed because of the refusal of the court to give an instruction reading as follows: “4.

1926McDonald v. State, 160 Ark. 185 . • The refusal of the court to give an instruction numbered 4, requested by appellant, is assigned as error.

1926It reads as follows: “You are instructed that, unless you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed some act which was the begin-m'np’ of the attempt to have sexual intercourse forcibly with and against the will of the prosecuting witness, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to commit rape.” This instruction is a correct declaration of the law as was declared by this court in the case of Anderson v. State, 77 Ark. 37 .

1924Green v. State, 38 Ark. 304 ; Logi v. State, 153 Ark. 317 .

1924Green v. State, 38 Ark. 304 ; Logi v. State, 153 Ark. 317 .

1923In the absence of specific objection, the giving- of the instruction as written was not a reversible error.” In Johnson v. State, 127 Ark. 516 -532, the appellant asked the court to give an instruction similar in purport to that under review, which the trial court refused.' This court held that the instruction, taken as a whole, was not the law, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant it.

1923In Johnson v. State, 120 Ark. 193 -203, an instruction was given containing similar language to that in the first part of the instruction under review, ' and we refused to reverse the judgment because of such ruling.

1918The case of Carleton v. State, supra, was reversed because of the refusal of the court to give an instruction which reads as follows: “You are instructed that before you can find the defendant guilty, you must find from the evidence that the beer in question was intoxicating. ’ ’ The indictment in that case alleged the sale of an intoxicating drink called buck, and we said that the courts did not judicially know that this was an intoxicating drink, ■and that the jury should, therefore, have been told that a conviction could not be had unless the drink sold was an intoxicating one.

1915It is true the principal issue in the case was that of adverse possession, but it was not the sole issue, inasmuch as there was a denial of the 'allegation that the strip was within the, boundaries of the lots owned by plaintiff and the evidence was conflicting on that issue. (2-3.) Error is also assigned in the refusal of the court to give an instruction requested by plaintiff in the following words: “The burden of proof is upon the defendants to prove adverse possession to (the land in controversy. ” Now, the language of the instruction is that used by this court in one of its decisions (Nic