Plante v. City of Manchester
Decision Date | 31 May 1927 |
Citation | 138 A. 314 |
Parties | PLANTE v. CITY OF MANCHESTER. ROBERGE v. SAME. |
Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Matthews, Judge.
Two actions on the case by Joseph A. Plante, administrator of the estate of Arthur Plante, deceased, and by Alfred J. Roberge against the City of Manchester. Verdicts for defendant, after trial by jury, and plaintiffs bring exceptions. Exceptions transferred. Exceptions overruled.
Two actions on the case under the highway statute (Laws 1893, c. 59, § 1; P. L. c. 89, § 1) for damages growing out of an accident alleged to have been caused by a dangerous embankment. Trial by jury. Verdicts for the defendant.
The plaintiff Roberge was a passenger in an automobile driven by the deceased, Arthur Plante, which was wrecked by going over an embankment on one of the defendant's highways November 13, 1924. As a result of this accident, Plante was killed and Roberge was injured.
During the cross-examination of the plaintiff Roberge, the following questions were asked about plaintiff's intestate, Plante:
Subsequently the clerk of the Manchester police court was produced as a witness and asked the following question:
"Have you a record pertaining to Arthur Plante?"
Objection having been made by the plaintiff, this question was withdrawn. The court instructed the jury as follows:
The foregoing exceptions were transferred.
McLane & Davis and John P. Carleton, all of Manchester, for plaintiffs.
Thomas J. Bois, City Sol., of Manchester, for defendant.
The only grounds of objection suggested by counsel to the questions which were actually put to the witness and answered were (1) that the fact sought to be proved was immaterial and (2) that the answers...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bullard v. McCarthy
...this court will not consider grounds of exceptions not specified or called to the court's attention at the trial." Plante v. Manchester, 83 N.H. 57, 59, 138 A. 314, 315. The defendant requested the court to strike out a subsequent remark of the same witness as appears from the following "Q.......
-
State v. Cassell, 86-041
...court will not consider grounds of objections not specified or called to the court's attention at the trial. See Plante v. Manchester, 83 N.H. 57, 59, 138 A. 314, 315 (1927); State v. Laliberte, 124 N.H. 621, 621, 474 A.2d 1025, 1025 (1984); N.H.R.Ev. 103(b)(1). In any case the defendant lo......
-
Gauthier v. Bergeron
...ground that the witness was not qualified as an expert. No other grounds, if any should exist, are now open to him. Plante v. Manchester, 83 N.H 57, 59, 138 A. 314. In view of the defendant's experience in operating this particular automobile we believe the court could find that his testimo......
-
Bean v. Mercantile Ins. Co. Of America., 3634.
...No such claims were made by the defendant at the trial, and it would appear that it is now too late to raise them. Plante v. City of Manchester, 83 N.H. 57, 138 A. 314; Bullard v. McCarthy, 89 N.H. 158, 195 A. 355. The sole ground of the defendant's exception taken at the trial to the submi......