Reed v. Boston & Maine Railroad
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
“The mortality tables were competent evidence of the plaintiff’s expectation of life. 3 Wig. Ev., s. 1698.” Piper v. Railroad, 75 N. H. 228, 234. This the defendants concede, but they contend that their objection “to what he [plaintiff’s counsel] offers” was an objection to the authenticity of the document or paper offered as representing the Carlisle tables. That the language used did not definitely bring this objection to the attention of the court might be a sufficient answer to the claim now made but, conceding such an objection was properly made, the case presents nothing for this court.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bourassa v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
- Piper v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
- Burrill v. AlexanderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Monteith v. Manchester Rendering Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1925