Barton v. City of Manchester, No. 6076
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | GRIFFITH |
| Citation | 110 N.H. 494,272 A.2d 612 |
| Parties | Joseph BARTON et al. v. CITY OF MANCHESTER. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 6076 |
Page 612
v.
CITY OF MANCHESTER.
[110 N.H. 495]
Page 613
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Pingree & Bigg, T. William Bigelow and Robert H. Hurd, Manchester, for plaintiffs.J. Francis Roche, Manchester (by brief and orally), for City of Manchester.
GRIFFITH, Justice.
This is an appeal under the provisions of RSA ch. 31 from an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Manchester whereby the R-1B District established in the vicinity of Greenwood Street, Fairfax Street and Interstate Highway 193 was rezoned as a 1-3 District. Trial was by the court and the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed on motion of the defendant at the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case.
Subsequent to the dismissal of the plaintiffs' case new counsel appeared for the plaintiffs and requested they be allowed exceptions on all rulings of the trial court adverse to the plaintiffs 'including, but not limited to, an exception to the Court's granting of the defendant's motion to dismiss.' This request was opposed by the defendant and in approving the reserved case the Trial Court (King, J.) restricted the plaintiffs to 'any exceptions appearing in the transcript.' No exceptions appear in the transcript to the rulings of the trial court the plaintiffs now seek to contest.
Plaintiffs urge that we establish a rule abolishing the necessity of exceptions and apply it to this case. They cite persuasive criticisms of the requirement of exceptions (1 Wigmore s. 20, at 355 (3d ed. (1940)); McCormick on Evidence s. 52, at 121 (1954)) and the widespread adoption by state courts of the substance of Federal Rule 46 which did away with the necessity of exceptions in the federal courts. Whatever the merits of the plaintiffs' arguments we are not disposed to consider the abolishment of the requirement of exceptions in the context of an individual case. See Rickers' Petition, 29 A. 559, 560 (1890) 66 N.H. 207, 211; RSA 491:10. While exceptions are referred to in RSA 490:10 and RSA 491:17 they do not limit consideration by the supreme court under RSA 490:4; and the present rule is not as restricted as [110 N.H. 496] the bare statement that 'exceptions * * * not taken at the time * * * (are) waived' (Peebles v. Rand, 43 N.H. 337, 342 (1861)) would seem to indicate. The necessity of a particular formula to preserve an exception was held unnecessary in Gerry v. Neugebauer, 83 N.H. 23, 136 A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breest v. Perrin, Civ. No. 79-266-D
...this situation falls within a recognized exception to the general rule set forth above, citing inter alia, Barton v. City of Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 (1970), and cases cited therein. Alternatively, petitioner Breest argues that the remarks made by his counsel to the trial judg......
-
Breest v. Perrin, Nos. 80-1635
...law requirement of exceptions to some degree. See State v. Boisvert, 119 N.H. 174, 400 A.2d 48 (1979); Barton v. City of Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 (1970). See generally 1 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 18 & 20 (3d ed. 1940) (distinguishing between objections and exceptions in evidentia......
-
Martineau v. Perrin, Nos. 78-240
...in certain situations, these cases do not come within any recognized exception to the general rule. See Barton v. City of Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 [119 N.H. 532] (1970). In State v. Meloon, 116 N.H. 669, 366 A.2d 1176 (1976), we reminded counsel (b)y failing to object at a tim......
-
State v. Fleury, No. 5691
...was also intended to amend the reserved case and to raise the issues argued by newly appointed defense counsel. Cf. Barton v. Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 On September 3, 1965, an employee of Sully's Superette in Manchester was robbed by two men who were armed with handguns and we......
-
Breest v. Perrin, Civ. No. 79-266-D
...this situation falls within a recognized exception to the general rule set forth above, citing inter alia, Barton v. City of Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 (1970), and cases cited therein. Alternatively, petitioner Breest argues that the remarks made by his counsel to the trial judg......
-
Breest v. Perrin, Nos. 80-1635
...law requirement of exceptions to some degree. See State v. Boisvert, 119 N.H. 174, 400 A.2d 48 (1979); Barton v. City of Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 (1970). See generally 1 Wigmore on Evidence §§ 18 & 20 (3d ed. 1940) (distinguishing between objections and exceptions in evidentia......
-
Martineau v. Perrin, Nos. 78-240
...in certain situations, these cases do not come within any recognized exception to the general rule. See Barton v. City of Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 [119 N.H. 532] (1970). In State v. Meloon, 116 N.H. 669, 366 A.2d 1176 (1976), we reminded counsel (b)y failing to object at a tim......
-
State v. Fleury, No. 5691
...was also intended to amend the reserved case and to raise the issues argued by newly appointed defense counsel. Cf. Barton v. Manchester, 110 N.H. 494, 272 A.2d 612 On September 3, 1965, an employee of Sully's Superette in Manchester was robbed by two men who were armed with handguns and we......