An instruction, in an action for a broker's commissions, after the jury had been recalled, and had announced that they were not likely to agree upon a verdict, that such trials were costly to the county, that if results are not reached people lose faith in the ability of the courts to deliver justice; that the single question in the case, which could be solved readily, was whether plaintiff, by his sub-agent, procured a customer, and whether the parties dealt, that if so, plaintiff was entitled to his commissions; and that the case was the simplest ever presented to a jury, was prejudicial error, as in fact directing a verdict for plaintiff, though the court had previously instructed that before the plaintiff could recover he must prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence that defendant contracted with him, or that she authorized her husband to do so, etc. Ebert v. Wilcox, 155 Mich. 69, 118 N. W. 735, 15 D. L. N. 967.