Case ID: nh_78/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parsons, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hillsborough,
    Oct. 3, 1916.
    James W. Brown v. Hudson, Pelham & Salem Street Railway Company & a.
    
    Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. The liability of the defendants was admitted and the only issue submitted to the jury was that of damages. The defendants took exception to the reference by plaintiff’s counsel in argument to the grounds of negligence charged in the writ and to the number and ability of the counsel appearing for the defence.
    A bill of exceptions was allowed by Sawyer, J., at the September term, 1915, of the superior court.
    
      Albert Terrien and Doyle & Lucier (Mr. Lucier orally), for the plaintiff.
    
      Hughes & Doe, Charles J. Hamblett, Marshall D. Cobleigh, and Sherman E. Burroughs (Mr. Doe orally), for the defendants.
   Parsons, C. J.

Counsel did not state facts not before the jury. The allegations of negligence in the writ were admitted as facts. The number of counsel appearing was of record in the case and their ability, if not matter of common knowledge, was an inference which might be drawn from their conduct of the cause. Whether from these facts any inference could be drawn material upon the question tried, is a question of law upon which in the absence of exception as "to the instruction of the jury it must be presumed proper instructions were given to and followed by them. Conn. River Power Co. v. Dickinson, 75 N. H. 353, 358; Seeton v. Dunbarton, 73 N. H. 134, 137; Leavitt v. Company, 72 N. H. 290.

Exceptions overruled.

All concurred.