‘Should’ is obligatory, NOT advisory.

The specific grounds of objection are that the court should have used the word “shall” instead of “should,” that the word “should” is merely advisory, and that the jury was left at its discretion in the matter of reduction of the damages. It has been said that the word “should” is the past tense of the word “shall,” and we think, in the connection in which it was used, the jury understood that it meant more than simply advisory.

In the case of Smith v. State, 142 Ind. 288, 41 N. E. 595, the Supreme Court of Indiana held that it was more imperative than the word “may.”

In the case of Lynch v. Bates, 139 Ind. 206, 38 N. E. 806, where the court charged the jury that in passing upon the weight of the evidence, etc., they “should” take into consideration *1081 the interest of the witness, etc., the court reversed the case, holding that the word “should” there was too imperative.

In the case of Durand's Adm'r v. N. Y. & L. B. R. Co., 65 N. J. Law, 656, 48 Atl. 1013, the court held that the word “should” implies the performance of some obligation or duty. Often the word “shall” is used to mean “may.” So, it will be seen that either of the terms cannot be considered abstractly, but must be considered in connection with the subject-matter and sense in which it is used.