Ordway v. Haynes
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
The original writ was dated* Aug. 30,1864, a writ of review, Nov. 28, 1866. The action was case against the defendant as a surgeon, for alleged malpractice in not properly and skilfully setting and curing plaintiff’s fractured leg; which injury occurred to plaintiff on the 20th of May, A. D. 1863. The plaintiff’s writ contained two counts. The ad dam-hum, $10,000. Defendant’s plea, the general issue.
Read the full summary
The original writ was dated* Aug. 30,1864, a writ of review, Nov. 28, 1866. The action was case against the defendant as a surgeon, for alleged malpractice in not properly and skilfully setting and curing plaintiff’s fractured leg; which injury occurred to plaintiff on the 20th of May, A. D. 1863. The plaintiff’s writ contained two counts. The ad dam-hum, $10,000. Defendant’s plea, the general issue. The verdict having been in favor of plaintiff, he now moves that the same be set aside, and for a new trial for error in the rulings of the court. In opening the case for the said Ordway, to the…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, J.
The engraving that was offered as a chalk, taken alone, was not objectionable. The witness may use, to illustrate his meaning, and the counsel to illustrate his case, any chalk, whether engraved or more roughly sketched, whether made with a pen, a pencil, a paint brush, a coal, or a piece of chalk. If the diagram alone were offered, and offered simply as a chalk, we see no objection to it. But when it *165was offered, as the case shows this was, “ as an engraving in a medical book,” that makes it at once improper as evidence, because that gives it an undue importance with the jury. The jury…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Folger v. CorbettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
- Piper v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909