State v. Vale Mills

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

State v. Vale Mills

63 N.H. 4

CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire

DecidedDecember 5, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 N.H. 4 (State v. Vale Mills) 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

State v. Vale Mills, 63 N.H. 4 (N.H. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Stanley, J.

Tbe first three exceptions stand on the same ground. The evidence objected to was taken from ancient records, and was competent to be considered by the jury on the question of the laying out of Main street. Prichard v. Atkinson, 8 N. H. 835, 338; State v. Alstead, 18 N. H. 59 ; Willey v. Portsmouth, 85 N. H. 303, 309, 310; Hayward v. Bath, 38 N. H. 179, 187; Thompson v. Major. 58 N. H. 242, 244; Plummer v. Ossipee, 59 N. H. 56; 1 Greenl. Evid., ss. 139, 483, 493, 496, 497, 501.

The location of the west line of the street, in dispute, was a matter of public and general interest, and the evidence of reputation, to which objection was made, ivas competent. 1 Greenl. Evid., ss. 128-131.

The portion of the record of the laying out of Salmon street read was competent, as a declaration of a former owner on the question of boundary. The petition described the point of beginning of Salmon steet. It was signed by Gillis, under whom the defendants claim, and was in legal effect his declaration as to the location of the east side of the street in dispute. Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546; Smith v. Knight, 20 N. H. 9; Hurlburt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H. 73; Prescott v. Hayes, 43 N. H. 596.

The defendants make no argument and cite no authority in support of their exceptions.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

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

Stanley, J.

Tbe first three exceptions stand on the same ground. The evidence objected to was taken from ancient records, and was competent to be considered by the jury on the question of the laying out of Main street. Prichard v. Atkinson, 8 N. H. 835, 338; State v. Alstead, 18 N. H. 59 ; Willey v. Portsmouth, 85 N. H. 303, 309, 310; Hayward v. Bath, 38 N. H. 179, 187; Thompson v. Major. 58 N. H. 242, 244; Plummer v. Ossipee, 59 N. H. 56; 1 Greenl. Evid., ss. 139, 483, 493, 496, 497, 501.

The location of the west line of the street, in dispute, was a matter of public and general interest, and the evidence of reputation, to which objection was made, ivas competent. 1 Greenl. Evid., ss. 128-131.

The portion of the record of the laying out of Salmon street read was competent, as a declaration of a former owner on the question of boundary. The petition described the point of beginning of Salmon steet. It was signed by Gillis, under whom the defendants claim, and was in legal effect his declaration as to the location of the east side of the street in dispute. Smith v. Powers, 15 N. H. 546; Smith v. Knight, 20 N. H. 9; Hurlburt v. Wheeler, 40 N. H. 73; Prescott v. Hayes, 43 N. H. 596.

The defendants make no argument and cite no authority in support of their exceptions.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.H. 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vale-mills-nh-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack