Batchelder v. Sanborn
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Case, for flowing the plaintiff’s land. The defendant justified the building and maintaining his dam in the manner complained of in the plaintiff’s declaration, by virtue of an alleged license from the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Case, for flowing the plaintiff’s land. The defendant justified the building and maintaining his dam in the manner complained of in the plaintiff’s declaration, by virtue of an alleged license from the plaintiff. No direct proof of a license was offered; but the defendant introduced evidence tending to show that the plaintiff lived in the neighborhood, and that he was repeatedly at the place of the mill while the dam was building; that he expressed himself pleased that the farm on which the mill privilege was, had fallen into the hands of the defendant, who was, as he said, able to erect a…
1Opinion of the CourtEastman, J.
Most of the evidence offered by the defendant was competent to be considered by a jury to show a license. Ameriscoggin Bridge v. Bragg, 11 N. H. Rep. 102. The principal question presented by the case, arises upon the 'admission of the defendant’s book of accounts. This question has heretofore undergone a pretty full discussion in the case of Woodes v. Dennett, 12 N. H. Rep. 510, and Little v. Wyatt, 14 N. H. Rep. 23. But the counsel for the defendant has cited a number of authorities and presented some views that we will examine.
The facts upon which the question arises are brief, and may be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Inhabitants of Augusta v. Inhabitants of WindsorSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1841
- Woodes v. DennettSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1842
- Ameriscoggin Bridge v. BraggSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840
- Little v. WyattSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843