Giles v. Smith
This text of 66 A. 1049 (Giles v. Smith) 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.
Opinion
As the executrix did not elect to testify, the plaintiff was properly excluded as a witness to all facts occurring in the lifetime of the deceased as to which the deceased could have testified if living. P. S., c. 224, ss. 16, 17; Parsons v. Wentworth, 73 N. H. 122; Perkins v. Perkins, 68 N. H. 264. Under the settled construction of the statute, the plaintiff could not testify to what Smith did or told him; nor to the contents of the letters, if Smith had seen them and therefore could have testified to their contents. Welch v. Adams, 63 N. H. 344, 351. The plaintiff’s testimony was not competent unless the contrary appeared. Harvey v. Hilliard, 47 N. H. 551; Fosgate v. Thompson, 54 N. H. 455; Parsons v. Wentworth, supra.
Fxception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 A. 1049, 74 N.H. 238, 1907 N.H. LEXIS 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-smith-nh-1907.