We note that there were two judgments of conviction on appeal to the Appellate Court, one involving the defendant's conviction of possession of narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, possession of marijuana and failure to appear in the first degree, and another involving the defendant's conviction of forgery in the second degree. See State v. Burroughs, supra, 99 Conn. 415 n. 2. Although the Appellate Court reversed the defendant's conviction on the drug possession charges, it affirmed the trial court's judgments in all other respects.

Under General Statutes, § 5657, the court may return the jury to a second and a third consideration of a case if it judges from the verdict returned that they have mistaken the evidence and brought in a verdict contrary to it, or contrary to the direction of the court in a matter of law. It is proper for the court to inform the jury why they are so returned, and, in the absence of erroneous instructions to the jury in returning them, its action will not be reviewed by this court, especially when it appears that the verdict finally accepted is not, by reason of the change made, contrary to the law or the evidence. Daniels v. Grand 5, 10 and 25-Cent Stores, Inc., 99 Conn. 415, 416, 121 A. 804; Black v. Griggs, 74 Conn. 582, 584, 51 A. 523. There was nothing erroneous in the remarks of the court when it asked the jury to reconsider its verdict. It merely stated that in its opinion, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, $2500 was inadequate damages. If the jury persisted in their conclusion that it was adequate there was nothing in the instructions of the court to prevent them from bringing in another verdict for the same amount. King v. Haynes, 114 Conn. 396, 398, 158 A. 915. Indeed, the court suggested this, stating that if they wanted to stand by those figures all they had to do was to come back and render the same verdict, and added that it was a matter within their control and not that of the court. Under the statute the exercise of the power to return the jury is not conditioned upon a conclusion by the trial court that the verdict is so unreasonable that if accepted it would have to be set aside as against the evidence.

The court is not required to use the exact language with which a party clothes a pertinent request to charge. Daniels v. Grand 5, 10 and 25-Cents Stores, Inc., 99 Conn. 415, 417, 121 A. 804; Roth v. Chatlos, 97 Conn. 282, 286, 116 A. 332; Sandora v. Times Co., 113 Conn. 574, 579, 155 A. 819; Walker v. New Haven Hotel Co., 95 Conn. 231, 238, 111 A. 59; Temple v. Gilbert, 86 Conn. 335, 339, 85 A. 380. It is a rule of general application that one who has been injured by the negligence of another must use reasonable care to promote recovery and prevent any aggravation or increase of the injuries. Flint v. Connecticut Hassam Paving Co., 92 Conn. 576, 578, 103 A. 840.

All these requests are sufficiently covered in the charge as delivered. "The court is not required to use the language, often prolix and largely argumentative, . . . with which a party clothes a pertinent request to charge." Daniels v. Grand 5, 10 and 25-Cent Stores, Inc., 99 Conn. 415, 417, 121 A. 804. It is sufficient and usually desirable to incorporate in its own arrangement of a charge, the pertinent requests of a party. Roth v. Chatlos, 97 Conn. 282, 286, 116 A. 332.

We must, however, reiterate what we have said before, that it makes for a clearer and more orderly statement and affords to the jury greater ease of understanding, if the trial judge incorporates into the body of his charge, in his own language, the substance of such requests to charge as he deems it proper to grant, rather than to leave them to be stated separately, with the modifications and explanations usually necessary. Gannon v. Sisk, 95 Conn. 639, 647, 112 A. 697; Roth v. Chatlos, 97 Conn. 282, 286, 116 A. 332; Daniels v. Grand 5, 10 and 25-Cent Stores, Inc., 99 Conn. 415, 417, 121 A. 104.