Scully v. Manchester Street Railway
This text of 83 A. 512 (Scully 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 question was clearly competent for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness. If he had answered the question in the negative, it would have had some tendency, under the circumstances, to show that he was exaggerating the speed of the car, while the affirmative answer which he gave tended to show he was telling the truth. As the testimony was at least competent for this purpose, its admission was not error, even if it was incompetent for other purposes. Haskell v. Railway, 73 N. H. 587; Robinson v. Stahl, 74 N. H. 310; Conn. River Power Co. v. Dickinson, 75 N. H. 353, 358.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
83 A. 512, 76 N.H. 578, 1912 N.H. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scully-v-manchester-street-railway-nh-1912.