Reynolds v. Boston & Maine Transp. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 July 1953 |
| Parties | , 37 A.L.R.2d 1149 REYNOLDS v. BOSTON & MAINE TRANSP. CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
George P. Cofran, Concord, Thomas E. Flynn, Jr., Portsmouth, and Paul A. Rinden, Concord, for plaintiff.
Burns, Calderwood & Bryant, Dover, for defendant.
The defendant takes the position that, although the provisions of R.L., c. 392, § 23 do not directly govern this case, this section sets up a policy which should be applied to it. Consequently it maintains that the Court's denial of plaintiff's motion should be sustained as a matter of law or at least as a proper exercise of the Court's discretion.
The plaintiff contends that section 23 is not applicable to discovery and that the modern concept of discovery and justice require that the information sought be made available in order that the trial be rendered fair.
R.L. c. 392, § 23 reads as follows: 'No party shall be compelled, in testifying or giving a deposition, to disclose the names of the witnesses by whom nor the manner in which he proposes to prove his case, nor, in giving a deposition, to produce any writing which is material to his case or defense, unless the deposition is taken in his own behalf.'
'Discovery is the disclosure by defendant of facts, deeds, documents, or other things which are in his exclusive knowledge or possession, and which are necessary to the party seeking the discovery as a part of a cause or action pending * * *.' 27 C.J.S., Discovery, § 1, p. 5; Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co., 71 N.H. 332, 340, 51 A. 1075, 57 L.R.A. 949.
'The right to discovery and inspection is necessarily preliminary, remedial and discretionary and is favored as a method 'to ascertain the truth by rational means' in order that the case may be decided on the basis of pertinent evidence rather than the rules of evidence.' State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 108, 111, 58 A.2d 749, 751.
However plaintiff's right to discovery does not extend to all facts which may be material to the issue but is confined to facts which are material to her cause of action. Their production will be ordered if the Court can fairly find that they may in any way be material to plaintiff's cause which may mean simply material to the proper preparation of her case. Ingram v. Boston & M. Railroad, 89 N.H. 277, 279, 197 A. 822; Lefebvre v. Somersworth Shoe Co., 93 N.H. 354, 356, 41 A.2d 924. We have no doubt that it could be found that the names and addresses of passengers contained on these cards are material to the proper preparation of plaintiff's case.
It is true, as pointed out by defendant, that the plaintiff has not shown that any of these witnesses knows any facts which are material to the case. However, the materiality of the evidence sought need not be definitely established. Ingram v. Boston & M. Railroad, supra. It is sufficient that they may have such knowledge, which is likely.
It is also true that discovery is not to be granted the plaintiff to enable him to pry into defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State
...trial. Durocher's Ice Cream Co. v. Peirce Construction Co., 106 N.H. 293, 295, 210 A.2d 477; Reynolds v. Boston & Maine Transp. Company, 98 N.H. 251, 253, 98 A.2d 157, 37 A.L.R.2d 1149. The plaintiff states that the purpose of the interrogatories propounded to the State is to ascertain the ......
-
Brigham v. Hudson Motors, Inc.
...a mistrial on the basis of counsel's argument alone or to deny plaintiffs' motion based on this ground. Reynolds v. Boston & Maine Transp. Co., 98 N.H. 251, 98 A.2d 157 (1953); Perreault v. Lyons, 98 N.H. 317, 99 A.2d 916 The second issue presented is the applicability of the doctrine of st......
-
McDuffey v. Boston & M.R.R.
...of limiting their breadth and scope. Therrien v. Public Service Company, 99 N.H. 197, 108 A.2d 48; Reynolds v. Boston & Maine Transportation Co., 98 N.H. 251, 98 A.2d 157, 37 A.L.R.2d 1149; Lincoln v. Langley, 99 N.H. 158, 106 A.2d 383. Counsel perform a useful function to the Bar and to th......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Cutter
...evidence rather than the rules of evidence.' State v. Cote, 95 N.H. 108, 111, 58 A.2d 749, 752; Reynolds v. Boston & Maine Transp. Company, 98 N.H. 251, 253, 98 A.2d 157, 37 A.L.R.2d 1149; Stimpert v. Abdnour, 30 Ill.App.2d 159, 166, 173 N.E.2d These pre-trial devices have supplanted the 'o......