Haskell v. Manchester Street Railway
This text of 64 A. 186 (Haskell v. Manchester Street Railway) 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
The amount of expenditure required to have remedied the defect from which the plaintiff received her injury-had some tendency to show whether the defendants were guilty of a want, of care in not making repairs before the accident. Taylor v. Railway, 48 N. H. 304, 316. The evidence was competent. Being competent for some purpose, the verdict cannot be disturbed, since it does not appear that it was offered for a purpose for which it was incompetent. Rogers v. Kenrick, 63 N. H. 335; Smith v. Morrill, 71 N. H. 409, 411; Reagan v. Railway, 72 N. H. 298. The presumption is, in the absence of exception, that the jury were properly instructed as to the legal tendency of the evidence, and that they followed the instructions given. Lawrence v. Towle, 59 N. H. 28, 31; Mitchell v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 96, 117.
Exception overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 A. 186, 73 N.H. 587, 1906 N.H. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haskell-v-manchester-street-railway-nh-1906.