Woodbury v. Whiting
| Decision Date | 26 July 1895 |
| Citation | 68 N.H. 607,44 A. 385 |
| Parties | WOODBURY v. WHITING. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Carroll county.
Action by Mary A. Woodbury against Orestes F. Whiting. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions overruled.
George W. M. Pitman and James A. Edgerly, for plaintiff.
Elmer J. Smart and John B. Nash, for defendant.
The Jury could not have found for the defendant if they had not found that the defendant did not speak the words alleged. Wier v. Allen, 51 N.H. 177, 180. If the defendant did not make the charge alleged as the slander, it is of no consequence whether the evidence excepted to was or was not competent upon the question of damages. The case presents no reason for the consideration of that question. Wier v. Allen, supra. Exceptions overruled.
CLARK, J., did not sit The others concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuba v. Devonshire Mills
...not improper because, having found there was no liability, the jury had no occasion to consider the question of damages. Woodbury v. Whiting, 68 N. H. 607, 44 Atl. 385; Wier v. Allen, 51 N. H. 177, The second exception is overruled because there was no evidence in the case upon which to fou......
-
Small v. Saunders
...H. 313, 86 Am. Dec. 173; Graves v. Graves, 45 N. H. 323; Wier v. Allen, 51 N. H. 177; Parkinson v. Railroad, 61 N. H. 416; Woodbury v. Whiting, 68 N. H. 607, 44 A. 385; Twarog v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 80 N. H. 89, 113 A. The claim that the credit which the plaintiffs admitted should be applied......
-
Twarog v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co.
...instruction in reference to damages was incorrect, it was immaterial. Kuba v. Devonshire Mills, 78 N. H. 245, 99 Att. 91; Woodbury v. Whiting, 68 N. H. 607, 44 Atl. 385: Wier v. Allen, 51 N. H. 177, 180. Consequently there is no reason to consider whether the instruction to which exception ......
- Mechanicks' Nat. Bank v. City of Concord