Danos v. Manchester Coal & Ice Co.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1Opinion of the CourtBranch, J.
The defendants’ claim that a new trial should be granted is based upon their exceptions to two rulings of the Trial Court excluding offered testimony.
1. During the cross-examination of Ovila R. Provost, the police inspector who investigated the accident immediately after it occurred, the following question was put to the witness: “Q. Did the general layout at the scene of the accident strike you as confirming the proposition that she was going fifteen to seventeen miles an hour and that he had just started and gone about a foot? A. Yes, sir.” To this testimony the plaintiffs objected upon the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dowling v. L. H. Shattuck, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1941
- Carbone v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1937
- Davis v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1910
- Higgins v. CarrollSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
- Goldstein v. United Amusement Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. StaplesSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
- Dunlop v. DaigleSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1982
- Wrobleski v. Constellation Corp.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978