Poore v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for personal injuries. Trial by jury and verdict for the defendants. Transferred from the September term, 1913, of the superior court by Pike, C. J. Subject to exception, the defendants were permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff’s husband as to whether he would make a claim against the defendants for loss of services and for money paid out for nursing and medical attendance if his wife recovered in this suit.
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
There is no special rule which excludes evidence like that admitted subject to exception; and as it was relevant to the issue of the witness’ credibility, the exception to its admission raises no question of law. Hoxie v. Walker, 75 N. H. 308, 311, 312; Kelland v. Company, 75 N. H. 168, 170; Curtice v. Dixon, 74 N. H. 386, 397.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hoxie v. WalkerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
- Curtice v. DixonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
- Kelland v. Jos. Noone's Sons Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Plank v. HeirigsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968