Goodwin v. Blanchard
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Writing for the Court | BINGHAM, J. |
| Citation | 64 A. 22,73 N.H. 550 |
| Parties | GOODWIN et al. v. BLANCHARD et al. |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1906 |
73 N.H. 550
GOODWIN et al.
v.
BLANCHARD et al.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Sullivan.
May 1, 1906.
Exceptions from Superior Court; Pike, Judge.
Action by E. Charles Goodwin and another against Ora D. Blanchard and another. There was a verdict for plaintiffs for nominal damages. The court denied the motion of plaintiffs for leave to bring persons into court for the purpose of examining them in contradiction of their affidavits on a motion for new trial, and also their motion for new trial, and plaintiffs except. Case discharged.
In support of their motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial on the ground of alleged misconduct of jurors in making up the verdict, the plaintiffs submitted the affidavit of the sheriff who had charge of the jury during their deliberations. The defendants submitted counter affidavits of some of the jurors. The plaintiffs then moved for leave to bring the jurors into court and examine them "in explanation or contradiction" of their affidavits. The motion was denied solely as a matter of law, and the plaintiffs excepted. The motion to set aside the verdict was also denied.
Burt Chellis and Allen Hollis, for plaintiffs. Ira Colby & Son and Hosea W. Parker, for defendants.
BINGHAM, J. The plaintiffs did not have the legal right to bring the jurors who had given affidavits in opposition to their motion before the trial judge and have them orally examined, even if their testimony would have been competent. The conduct of hearings
on motions is largely within the judicial discretion of the trial judge. He may require a motion involving an issue of fact to be heard upon affidavits only, and his ruling will not be set aside unless it is clear that in the particular case he abused his discretion. Strom v. Railway, 81 Minn. 348, 349, 84 N. W. 46; State v. King, 88 Minn. 175, 184, 92 N. W. 905; Gano v. Wells, 36 Kan. 688, 14 Pac. 251; Schoolfield v. Brunton, 20 Colo. 139, 30 Pac. 1103; People v. Tucker, 117 Cal. 229, 49 Pac. 134. He may require the moving party to present his whole case at once, and decline to receive affidavits or other proof in rebuttal of counter affidavits. Amos v. Howard, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 482, 491, Fed. Cas. No. 320. He may cause persons who have made ex parte affidavits in support of a motion to be brought before him and examined orally with respect to statements made in their affidavits and how they came to give them, for the purpose of testing their knowledge and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
...563;Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, 281 Mass. 303, 307, 184 N. E. 152, 87 A. L. R. 1407;Goodwin v. Blanchard, 73 N. H. 550, 64 A. 22.Rule 46 of the Superior Court (1932). A [195 N.E. 544]judge is no more bound to accept as true an uncontradicted affidavit than t......
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
...563; Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, 281 Mass. 303, 307, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407; Goodwin v. Blanchard, 73 N.H. 550, 64 A. 22.Rule 46 of the Superior Court (1932). A [195 N.E. 544] judge is no more bound to accept as true an uncontradicted affidavit than to......
-
Caldwell v. Yeatman
...Maxfield v. Pittsfield, 67 N.H. 104, 36 A. 609; Hearn v. Boston, etc., Railroad, 67 N.H. 320, 29 A. 970; Goodwin v. 15 A.2d 255 Blanchard, 73 N.H. 550, 64 A. 22; Winslow v. Smith, 74 N.H. 65, 70, 65 A. 108; Boston & Maine Railroad v. State, 76 N.H. 86, 91, 79 A. 701; Blodgett v. Park, 7......
-
Theriault v. Theriault
...the court, either in support of or in opposition to the motion, unless the facts are verifiedby Page 460 affidavit.' Goodwin v. Blanchard, 73 N.H. 550, 551, 64 A. 22, 23, Rule 45 of the Rules of the Superior Court, 99 N.H. Appendix, p. 614. While this rule is well established and of ancient......
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
...563;Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, 281 Mass. 303, 307, 184 N. E. 152, 87 A. L. R. 1407;Goodwin v. Blanchard, 73 N. H. 550, 64 A. 22.Rule 46 of the Superior Court (1932). A [195 N.E. 544]judge is no more bound to accept as true an uncontradicted affidavit than t......
-
Commonwealth v. Millen
...563; Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of London, 281 Mass. 303, 307, 184 N.E. 152, 87 A.L.R. 1407; Goodwin v. Blanchard, 73 N.H. 550, 64 A. 22.Rule 46 of the Superior Court (1932). A [195 N.E. 544] judge is no more bound to accept as true an uncontradicted affidavit than to......
-
Caldwell v. Yeatman
...Maxfield v. Pittsfield, 67 N.H. 104, 36 A. 609; Hearn v. Boston, etc., Railroad, 67 N.H. 320, 29 A. 970; Goodwin v. 15 A.2d 255 Blanchard, 73 N.H. 550, 64 A. 22; Winslow v. Smith, 74 N.H. 65, 70, 65 A. 108; Boston & Maine Railroad v. State, 76 N.H. 86, 91, 79 A. 701; Blodgett v. Park, 7......
-
Theriault v. Theriault
...the court, either in support of or in opposition to the motion, unless the facts are verifiedby Page 460 affidavit.' Goodwin v. Blanchard, 73 N.H. 550, 551, 64 A. 22, 23, Rule 45 of the Rules of the Superior Court, 99 N.H. Appendix, p. 614. While this rule is well established and of ancient......