Shea v. Hillsborough Mills
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the defendants’ employ. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The action was begun by Shea in his lifetime and since his death has been prosecuted by his administrator.
Read the full summary
Case, for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while in the defendants’ employ. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The action was begun by Shea in his lifetime and since his death has been prosecuted by his administrator. Transferred from the September term, 1914, of the superior court by Chamberlin, J. The plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to cross-examine a witness summoned by him, after stating to the court that he was called for the purpose of showing the condition of Shea’s health a few days before. In the course of the examination the defendants’ counsel objected to…
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The test to determine the competency of evidence is not to inquire how the facts were brought to the attention of the -triers, but whether they were capable of aiding them. It follows, therefore, that any prejudicial fact that is not relevant to one of the various issues in the case (using “issue” as it is used in Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401, and not. as in King v. Chase, 15 N. H. 9) is inadmissible as matter of law. This is true whether the evidence is introduced to prove the defendants’ fault or to discredit a witness. The court, therefore, erred in permitting the plaintiff to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Mayor of Baltimore v. ZellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Raymond's Admx. v. Rutland Railway, Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1916
- Williams v. United Box & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1921