In an action by a broker for commissions, the issue was whether plaintiff had sent the purchaser to defendant, and there was evidence for defendant that plaintiff had told defendant that he did not know the purchaser. The court instructed the jury that, if they found any testimony to the contrary of plaintiff's assertion that he sent the purchaser to defendant, they were at liberty to find it, but if they could not, then they were bound to take the testimony as it stood, and that they were to examine the evidence and find wherein or whereby there was any testimony to the effect that the purchaser did not go to defendant's house under the direction of plaintiff, and, if they found any such testimony, to consider it, but if they found no such testimony that their duty was plain. Held, that the charge was erroneous as an expression of opinion by the court, that there was no testimony in the record contradictory to plaintiff's assertion that he sent the purchaser to defendant. Barendsen v. Wilder (Mich. Sup. '09), 122 N. W. 355, 16 D. L. N. 529.