McLean v. Boston & M. R. R
| Citation | 116 A. 435 |
| Decision Date | 03 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 1766.,1766. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
| Parties | McLEAN v. BOSTON & M. R. R. |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsboro County; Sawyer, Judge.
Action by James McLean against the Boston & Maine Railroad. Verdict for plaintiff. Case transferred. One exception overruled, and new trial ordered as to the other.
Branch & Branch and Frederick Branch, all of Manchester, for plaintiff.
Warren, Howe & Wilson and De Witt C. Howe, all of Manchester, for defendants.
The defendants base their contention that the court erred when it denied their motion for a directed verdict on the proposition that it cannot be found the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of the federal Employers' Liability Act. 35 U. S. Stat. 65, c. 149 (U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665). The evidence relevant to that issue tends to prove that the plaintiff was engaged in repairing the track of the Manchester & Lawrence Railroad when he was injured; that that road extends from Lawrence, Mass., to Manchester, N. H., and that it was operated by the defendants. It is obvious, it can be found from this evidence, that the plaintiff's work was so closely connected with interstate commerce as to entitle him to the benefit of the federal act Pedersen v. Railroad, 229 U. S. 146, 33 Sup. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. 1125, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 153, note, pp. 163-167; 18 R. C. L. 855.
The plaintiff testified that he was pushing a motorcar at the time the accident happened, and that one of his fellow employees named Card caused him to fall. Card was called by the defendants, and, after denying that he pushed the plaintiff was asked if he did not make a statement to one of the plaintiff's attorneys which was reduced to writing and signed by him. He admitted that he made a statement and signed the paper shown him, but denied that he ever told the attorney or any one else that he pushed the plaintiff as therein stated. The plaintiff's young daughter was called by him as a witness, and, after being asked a few questions in regard to the work she did after her father was injured, was excused from testifying further. The defendants' counsel in commenting on these incidents charged the plaintiff and his counsel with putting statements into Card's mouth that he never made, and with soliciting the plaintiff's daughter to commit perjury. As these were inferences of which the evidence was capable the plaintiff's counsel felt called on, in closing, to answer them and in the course of his argument said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hulse v. Pacific & Idaho Northern Railway Co.
... ... 372, 236 S.W. 677; ... Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 229 U.S. 146, ... Ann. Cas. 1914C, 153, 33 S.Ct. 648, 57 L.Ed. 1125; McLean ... v. Boston & M. R. R., 80 N.H. 252, 116 A. 435; ... Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Gubler, 9 F.2d 494; ... Kinzell v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry ... ...
-
Sweeney v. Boston & M. R. R.
...Employers' Liability Act. Rockwell v. Hustis, 79 N. H. 57, 104 A. 127; Crugley v. Railroad, 79 N. H. 276, 108 A. 293; McLean v. Railroad, 80 N. H. 252, 116 A. 435; Paradis v. Railroad, 81 N. H. 210, 123 A, 227; Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. Railroad Co., 229 U. S. 146, 33 S. Ct. 648, 57 L. ......
-
State v. Cote
...lack of confidence in defense not averment of fact not in evidence, but proper responsive argument); cf. McLean v. Boston & M. Railroad , 80 N.H. 252, 253, 116 A. 435, 436 (1922) (plaintiff's responsive closing statements concerning his personal integrity and his law firm's reputation for h......
-
Richards v. Rizzi
...60 A.2d 461, that the argument was intended merely to illustrate a point and was not to be taken an testimony. See McLean v. Boston & M. Railroad, 80 N.H. 252, 116 A. 435. The Court's implied finding that plaintiff's counsel committed no prejudicial error upon this score or in any other asp......