State v. Eskew

*520the trial Judge; but the trial Judge then told the jury, at the suggestion of counsel for the respondent Martin that.the law did not allow him to pass on any question of fact in the case, and that he was not intimating any view he may have of the case; that he was trying to tell them “what the law is”.

Appellant’s complaint and testimony precluded the jury from basing a verdict f'or damages against the respondent Martin by reason of the “milk bottle” episode, and therefore the Judge’s charge could not have “elimmated the assault with the milk bottle”.

We have carefully read and reread the…