Athanasiou v. Roftsias

167 A. 265, 86 N.H. 595, 1933 N.H. LEXIS 89
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided June 29, 1933·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the excluded evidence was relevant, it was within the trial court’s discretion to exclude it for remoteness. As the exclusion may have been for this reason, the exception, being general, presents no legal question. Boulanger v. McQuesten, 79 N. H. 175, 176.

The case shows evidence warranting the argument excepted to.

Judgments on the verdicts.

Woodbury, J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Athanasiou v. Roftsias, 167 A. 265, 86 N.H. 595, 1933 N.H. LEXIS 89 (N.H. 1933).

167 A. 265 (Athanasiou v. Roftsias) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boulanger v. McQuesten
106 A. 492 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1919)