Voullgaris v. Gianaris
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Case, for conspiracy to defraud tbe plaintiff. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The defendants excepted to certain statements made in the argument for the plaintiff, which are stated in the opinion. Transferred from the May term, 1919, of the superior court by Sawyer, J.
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
Of the numerous exceptions taken by the defendants at the trial, the exceptions to the argument of the plaintiff’s counsel seem to be the Only ones insisted upon.
1. If there was in the argument a misstatement of the evidence by the plaintiff’s counsel, the error is not fatal to the verdict (State v. Wren, 77 N. H. 361, 364; Gosselin v. Company, 78 N. H. 149), especially in view of the finding of the presiding justice that “I am of the opinion that the statements [of counsel in argument] produced no injury to the defence.”
2. Statements that the defendants were engaged in a scheme to defeat…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. WrenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- State v. SmallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
- Seeton v. DunbartonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1905
- Lane v. Manchester MillsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1908
- Gosselin v. F. M. Hoyt Shoe Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1916
3Cited by2 opinions
- Miner v. KnightSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1922
- Berounsky v. OgdenSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941