We think this was obviously improper, considered even in the light of the greater degree of informality usually present in a land condemnation trial. For in every jury trial the taking of papers, memoranda, or exhibits by the jury to their room is a matter primarily within the sound judicial discretion of the court. Coy v. Town of Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 12 A.2d 641; Wiseman v. Ryan, 116 W. Va. 525, 182 S.E. 670. If any prejudice were shown to have resulted from this, we should not hesitate to set aside the judgment. But appellants were willing to allow the jury the use of a correct transcript, and the only specific error alleged to be contained in the one actually used is that in reporting that part of the argument of the property owners' counsel, in which counsel read to the jury two of the court's instructions, the court reporter, in each instance, failed to record the precise language of the instruction.

"`No good reason occurs to us why a jury may not, at times . . . during the consideration of cases before them, be permitted . . . to have read to them parts of the official court stenographer's shorthand notes of the testimony . . . .' What portions of the record, if any, will be submitted to the jury for their consideration is a matter of sound judicial discretion." State v. Cari, 163 Conn. 174, 184, 303 A.2d 7; see Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 490, 12 A.2d 641; State v. Rubaka, 82 Conn. 59, 67, 72 A. 566. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering to be read to the jury only that portion of the testimony requested. "The Court: I have no request from the jury that they need their recollections refreshed by any additional reading of the testimony.

State v. Rubaka, 82 Conn. 59, 67, 72 A. 566. What portions of the record, if any, will be submitted to the jury for their consideration is a matter of sound judicial discretion. Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 490, 12 A.2d 641; State v. Rubaka, supra, 68. It is clear from a review of the text of Officer Stankye's statement that his testimony which concerned the dropping of the bottle from the car was inextricably intertwined with the testimony which was directly related and responsive to the interrogatory of the jury.

The court instructed the jury that the determination whether the plaintiff had sustained its burden of proving "that the defendants would not sufficiently and reasonably remove the encumbrance regarding the chimney and thus left in abeyance the marketability of title" should be governed by the acceptance of the testimony, as to the cost of relocating the chimney, of either the architect who testified for the plaintiff or the contractor who testified for the defendants. The evidence of these two witnesses, if material to the determination of this issue, was but an element for the jury's consideration in connection with all the other evidence in the case. The jury should not have been so charged. Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 489, 12 A.2d 641; Brodie v. Connecticut Co., 87 Conn. 363, 367, 87 A. 798. The ultimate issue for the jury to determine was whether upon all the evidence the plaintiff had proved that the defendants were unable to convey a marketable title to the property within a reasonable time after being notified of the chimney encroachment. If so, the plaintiff was entitled to recover its deposit and the costs of searching the title.

Where a charge fairly presents the issues in a case, as it did here, error will not be found in a failure to give specific instructions upon some special feature in the absence of a request to do so. Rogoff v. Southern New England Contractors Supply Co., 129 Conn. 687, 692, 31 A.2d 29; Riley v. Connecticut Co., 129 Conn. 554, 559, 29 A.2d 759; Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 488, 12 A.2d 641; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., 65.

Taken as a whole, the charge with relation to the defendant's negligence was properly confined to those matters which were material to the determination of the issues upon the claims presented by the parties and was correct and adequate for the proper guidance of the jury. Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 486, 488, 12 A.2d 641; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc., 57. The defendant pleaded by way of special defense contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

In the absence of a request to charge on this point, no harmful error was committed in this respect. Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 488, 12 A.2d 641. The issues removed from the consideration of the jury clarified the charge and did not harm the defendant. These assignments are not well taken.

The remaining assignments directed to the charge fall within the principle that, where a charge fairly presents the essential issues in a case, error will not be found in a failure to give specific instructions upon some special feature in the absence of request to do so. Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 488, 12 A.2d 641; Conn. App. Proc., 65, p. 91. The defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to submit to the jury two interrogatories, one addressed to the question whether the tire was mounted on the rim by an employee of the plaintiff or an employee of the defendant, and the other, whether the rim was reasonably safe for use. The record fails to show any request to the court to submit such interrogatories.

The defendant failed to file any request to charge as called for by 156 of the Practice Book. It is true, as urged by the plaintiff, that error cannot be predicated on omission to charge on a specific point as to which no instruction is requested, if the charge as a whole is sufficient to guide the jury in deciding the issues. Giddings v. Honan, 114 Conn. 473, 475, 159 A. 271; Mavrides v. Lyon, supra, 176; Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 488, 12 A.2d 641. But when the omitted instructions are essential to a proper and complete consideration and decision of the case, failure to include them constitutes error, even though the court's attention has not been called to the point by a request to charge or in any way. Pietrycka v. Simolan, 98 Conn. 490, 499, 120 A. 310; Gross v. Boston, W. N.Y. St. Ry. Co., supra, 596. That the omitted instructions in the instant case fall within the latter rule sufficiently appears from what we have already said. Nor did the court's reference to the factual claims of the defendant concerning the reason for the sudden stop cure the omissions complained of, since this included no rule of law stating the correct test of the motorman's conduct. Finally, if we assume, as the record indicates, that the complaint of the omissions in the charge first cause as an afterthought on the part of experienced counsel, this requires that the claimed errors should be scanned with special care, but, since they concerned pri

Although we do not condone these mildly inhibiting remarks, the trial court was correct in informing the jury that it had discretion in determining what, if any, testimony should be read back to the jury upon their request. State v. Cari, 163 Conn. 174, 184, 303 A.2d 7 (1972); Coy v. Milford, 126 Conn. 484, 490, 12 A.2d 641 (1940); State v. Rubaka, 82 Conn. 59, 68, 72 A. 566 (1909). "[The rereading of testimony] lies almost exclusively in the good judgment of the judge presiding."