‘Should’ is mandatory.
Keller ’32 [W.H.; July 14; Judge on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania; Westlaw, “Foresi v. Hudson Coal Co.,” 106 Pa.Super. 307]
As regards the mandatory character of the rule, the word “should” is not only an auxiliary verb, it is also the preterite of the verb, “shall,” and has for one of its meanings, as defined in the Century Dictionary: “Obliged or compelled (to); would have (to); must; ought (to); used with an infinitive (without to) to express obligation, necessity or duty in connection with some act yet to be carried out.” We think it clear that it is in that sense that the word “should” is used in this rule, not merely advisory. When the judge in charging a jury tells them that, unless they find from all the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged, they should acquit, the word “should” is not used in an advisory sense, but has the force or meaning of “must,” or “ought to,” and carries with it the sense of *313 obligation and duty equivalent to compulsion. A natural sense of sympathy for a few unfortunate claimants who have been injured while doing something in direct violation of law must not be so indulged as to fritter away, or nullify, provisions which have been enacted to safeguard and protect the welfare of thousands who are engaged in the hazardous occupation of mining.