Berry v. McArdle

62 N.H. 354
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 5, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 62 N.H. 354 (Berry v. McArdle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berry v. McArdle, 62 N.H. 354 (N.H. 1882).

Opinion

Stanley, J.

It does not clearly appear that injustice may be done without the plaintiff’s testimony. G. L., c. 228, ss. 16, 17. Its exclusion was equivalent to a finding that justice did not require it, because the fact which she desired to prove was known only to herself and the deceased, and she could not be contradicted by the administrator or by any other witness. The legislature have prohibited the admission of lier testimony on the ground that it would put the parties on an unequal footing, and afford an unreasonable opportunity for fraud. For aught that appears, aside from her own testimony (Harvey v. Hilliard, 47 N. H. 551, 553, Fosgate v. Thompson, 54 N. H. 455), her services may have been gratuitous, or she may have been paid. There was no error at the trial. Moore v. Taylor, 44 N. H. 370, 374; Chandler v. Davis, 47 N. H. 462, 464; Brown v. Brown, 48 N. H. 90; Drew v. McDaniel, 60 N. H. 480, 482; Cochran v. Langmaid, 60 N. H. 571.

.Exceptions overruled.

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

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

Related

Parsons v. Wentworth
59 A. 623 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 N.H. 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-mcardle-nh-1882.