Pickett v. Norwood Calef & Co.

The defendant contends that “The facts proved are equally consistent with a theory of the accident which would discharge the defendants as with one that would charge them” (Deschenes v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 285, 291), and suggests three possible causes for the accident for which it would not be to blame which it contends are fully as probable as that upon which the plaintiff seeks to recover. The first of the defendant’s hypotheses is that the plaintiff improperly replaced the bolt in that he failed to set it “way back into the slot” in which it was supposed to go. The only support for this…