Lawrence v. Haynes
Superior Court of New Hampshire
This was an action of trespass for breaking- and entering the plaintiff’s close in Gilmanton. The defendants pleaded in bar that the locus in quo was the soil and freehold of the defendant, Haynes, and issue was joined ou the matter of the plea.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass for breaking- and entering the plaintiff’s close in Gilmanton. The defendants pleaded in bar that the locus in quo was the soil and freehold of the defendant, Haynes, and issue was joined ou the matter of the plea. The cause was tried here at February term, 1828. The locus in quo was claimed by the plaintiff' as part of a lot laid out in the town of Gilmanton, next adjoining the line between Gilmanton and North field, which lot was admitted to be the property of the plaintiff. And it was admitted that the defendant, Haynes, was the owner of a lot of land in…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
RichaRdson, C. J.
The plaintiff in this case demands a new trial on the ground that competent evidence offered by him was rejected by the court as incompetent. Part of the evidence rejected was a record of an adjudication of the court of sessions establishing the line between Gilmanton and Northfield in a case between those two towns. And one question now to be decided is, whether that record was between these parties evidence to show the original line between the townships ?
It did not appear that either of these parties was in any way a party to those…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Burrill v. WestSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1820
3Cited by4 opinions
- Smith v. PowersSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1844
- Warren v. CochranSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1853
- Adams v. StanyanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
- Warren v. CochranSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854