106 A. 498 | N.H. | 1919
In view of the number of times the defendants' witnesses were called upon to testify, more or less variance in their statements was to be expected. That there was such is admitted. This was discussed and the defendants' explanation given the jury in argument. The discussion thereof by plaintiff's counsel, to which exception was taken, was vigorous and emphatic, but there is nothing tending to show that he was or could have been understood to be testifying rather than arguing. The evidence all points in the opposite direction and the exception to the argument is overruled. Kambour v. Railroad,
When the case was last before the court, the defendants raised the question whether negligence in the operation of the incoming train could be found from the evidence. It was said in the opinion (
The instruction excepted, to, authorizing the jury to consider whether a signal by the whistle should have been given as the station was approached, was an application of the rule then announced. A question of law once decided is not reconsidered in the same case except upon a motion for rehearing. Seeton v. Dunbarton,
Exceptions overruled.
PLUMMER, J., was absent: the others concurred. *171