Condiles v. Waumbec Mills, Inc.

The plaintiff’s exceptions present the relatively narrow issue of whether the preponderance of evidence that psychoneurosis resulted from the accident was so great as to make it “appear clearly and definitely that the [Court] did not act properly in its consideration of the evidence” because it was “ ‘misled, or failed to consider intelligently the evidence laid before’ ” it. Witsutskie v. Malouin, 88 N. H. 242, 246. So far as the exception to the decree rests upon the claim that it is “against the law,” it presents no question of law, because none was previously saved. Bennett v. Larose, 82…