Sacramento Suburban Fruit Lands Co. v. Nelson

This is a companion case to Sacramento, etc., v. Melin (No. 5671) 36 F.(2d) 907 , to which reference is made for a general statement of the situation involved in this ease.

The appellants asked the court to give the following instruction:

This request was refused, and exceptions noted to the refusal. On that subject the court instructed the jury as follows: '

While this instruction covers in a general way the ground covered by the proposed instruction, it is erroneous, for by it the jury were informed that they might conclude from the evidence that the defendant was not entitled to the presumption of innocence and fair dealing. The presumption of innocence and fair dealing is of universal application. No one is ever, to be deprived of the presumption as a matter of law or because a jury may decide that the person is not entitled to the benefit of the presumption.

In addition to the foregoing error, which requires reversal of the judgment, the trial court made extended comments on the testimony of the witness C. G. Hopkins, who testified for the defendant. This witness, on direct examination, testified as follows:

It will be noted that on his direct examination he testified to…