History
  • No items yet
midpage
Spalding v. Merrimack
36 A. 253
| N.H. | 1892
|
Check Treatment

The obvious tendency of the testimony objected to was to discredit Hill, and as such no reason is perceived why it was not properly admitted. But if it was improperly admitted, no ground for a new trial is presented. The question how far the admission of evidence upon collateral issues should be carried for the purpose of disparaging a witness is one of fact, to be determined at the trial term, and is not subject to revision, whether the evidence is admitted or excluded. Perkins v. Towle, 59 N.H. 583, 585, and cases cited; Gibbs v. Parsons, 64 N.H. 66, 68.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Case Details

Case Name: Spalding v. Merrimack
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Dec 5, 1892
Citation: 36 A. 253
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.