58 A.2d 315 | N.H. | 1948
No question is raised concerning the seasonableness of the motion to quash and no opinion is expressed concerning this in view of the ruling that the indictment meets the constitutional requirements. See, State v. Proctor,
Article
State v. Gilbert,
The defendant's motion relating to the view is understood to mean that the jurors take turns in sitting in the driver's seat and the seat to the right of it where a companion of the defendant was when the accident occurred. The Court denied this in its discretion. Regardless of whether the conduct called for by the motion be designated an experiment or not, the denial of the motion was discretionary with the Court. R.L., c. 395, s. 21. It cannot be said that in this refusal the Court acted as no reasonable person would and accordingly this exception also is overruled. This does not mean that another judge with a new jury must or must not rule on a similar motion in the same way.
Exceptions overruled.
*100All concurred.