History
  • No items yet
midpage
Brown v. Hudson, Pelham & Salem Street Railway Co.
1916 N.H. LEXIS 78
| N.H. | 1916
|
Check Treatment

Counsel did not state facts not before the jury. The allegations of negligence in the writ were admitted as facts. The number of counsel appearing was of record in the case and their ability, if not matter of common knowledge, was an inference which might be drawn from their conduct of the cause. Whether from these facts any inference could be drawn material upon the question tried, is a question of law upon which in the absence of exception as to the instruction of the jury it must be presumed proper instructions were given to and followed by them. Conn. River Power Co. v. Dickinson, 75 N.H. 353, 358; Seeton v. Dunbarton, 73 N.H. 134, 137; Leavitt v. Company, 72 N.H. 290.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Brown v. Hudson, Pelham & Salem Street Railway Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Oct 3, 1916
Citation: 1916 N.H. LEXIS 78
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.