Maxfield v. Pittsfield
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Petition for a highway, referred to the county commissioners. The plaintiffs moved, that the report be set aside for the reason that the commissioners were not impartial. It appeared that before the trial one S., a resident of the defendant town of Loudon, saw B., one of the commissioners, and talked to him in a general way about taxation, and the embarrassed financial condition of Loudon and other towns in the state.
Read the full summary
Petition for a highway, referred to the county commissioners. The plaintiffs moved, that the report be set aside for the reason that the commissioners were not impartial. It appeared that before the trial one S., a resident of the defendant town of Loudon, saw B., one of the commissioners, and talked to him in a general way about taxation, and the embarrassed financial condition of Loudon and other towns in the state. As soon as B. understood S.’s purpose in talking to him, he told him it was not proper to continue the conversation, and no further talk was had between them. B. testified that…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam. *
The plaintiffs claim that the trial before the commissioners was not fair. By denying their motion to set aside the report the court found that their claim was not supported ; and the only question of law presented is, whether on the evidence that finding can be sustained. It is insisted that the remarks made by S. to B. some time before the hearing were calculated to prejudice the latter against the plaintiffs, and that it was not competent for B. to testify that he was not influenced thereby. Assuming that the first position is tenable, it does not follow that the second is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mason v. KnoxSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Knight v. EpsomSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Palmer v. StateSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Beckley v. AlexanderSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- Caldwell v. YeatmanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940