Parker

This case belongs to the same general class as Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Melin, 36 F. (2d) 907, just decided.

In the charge to the jury, concerning knowledge on the part of the defendant that the representations made were false, that the defendant" intended that the plaintiff should rely and act upon them, and that the plaintiff did rely and aet upon them, the court said:

That these instructions were improper and highly prejudicial does not, in our opinion, admit of question. In large part they state no rule of law for the guidance of the jury, and were not a fair and impartial comment on the testimony, as that term is generally understood. The instructions are argumentative in the extreme, and abound in questions suggesting their own answers. Starr v. United States, 153 U. S. 614 , 14 S. Ct. 919 , 38 L. Ed. 841 ; Rudd v. United States (C. C. A.) 173 F. 912 ; Sandals v. United States (C. C. A.) 213 F. 569 ; Weare v. United States (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 617 ; Lewis v. United States (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 849 ; Cook v. United States (C. C. A.) 18 F. (2d) 50; Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Melin, supra. A majority of these eases were criminal, but the right to a fair…