History
  • No items yet
midpage
Pitman v. Mauran
69 N.H. 230
| N.H. | 1897
|
Check Treatment

Whether the verdict is against the evidence, is a question of fact to be decided at the trial term. Fuller v. Bailey, 58 N.H. 71; Lefavor v. Smith,58 N.H. 125; Kelley v. Woodward, 58 N.H. 153; Daniels v. Lebanon,58 N.H. 284; Hovey v. Brown, 59 N.H. 114; Little v. Upham, 64 N.H. 279; Lucier v. Larose, 66 N.H. 141.

If the plaintiff desired different or additional instructions, he should have asked for them at the trial. If an exception was desired to the charge, it should have been taken before the jury retired. If there was any error, it could have been, and doubtless would have been, corrected. Such exceptions not taken at *Page 231 that time are waived, and cannot be taken afterward. Rules of Court, No. 54, — 56 N.H. 590; Moore v. Ross, 11 N.H. 547, 557; State v. Rye,35 N.H. 368, 381; Boyce v. Railroad, 43 N.H. 627; State v. Gorham,55 N.H. 152; Bank v. Ferguson, 58 N.H. 403; Dow v. Merrill, 65 N.H. 107.

Exceptions overruled.

CLARK, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Pitman v. Mauran
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1897
Citation: 69 N.H. 230
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.