Plumer ought not to have been admitted to defend. He has no interest in this suit. There is no way in which he will be prejudiced, or his rights affected, by the judgment. The evidence of his title was therefore irrelevant and inadmissible. Buckman v. Buckman, 4 N.H. 319" court="None" date_filed="1828-04-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/buckman-v-buckman-8503621?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8503621">4 N.H. 319; Blaisdell v. Ladd, 14 N.H. 129" court="None" date_filed="1843-08-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blaisdell-v-ladd-8504665?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8504665">14 N.H. 129; Boscawen v. Canterbury, 23 N.H. 188" court="None" date_filed="1851-12-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/boscawen-v-canterbury-8505565?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8505565">23 N.H. 188; Pike v. Pike,24 N.H. 381; Dunbar v. Starkey, 19 N.H. 160" court="None" date_filed="1848-07-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/dunbar-v-starkey-8505182?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8505182">19 N.H. 160.
Motion denied.