Case ID: nh_81/html/0550-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hillsborough, )
    Nov. 5, 1924.
    
    Wayne W. Constantine v. Joseph L. Grenier.
    Trespass, vi et armis. In the cross-examination of the defendant, the plaintiff was permitted to inquire if the witness had been convicted of violating the liquor laws, and as to the sentence. The defendant’s bill of exceptions was allowed in the superior court by Branch, J.
    
      John M. Stark, Peter J. King and Robert W. Upton, for the plaintiff.
    
      Arthur B. Hayden, for the defendant.
   Per Curiam.

“The extent to which an examination of this character should be carried is settled at the trial. Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H. 165.” Benoit v. Perkins, 79 N. H. 11, 18. The authority relied upon by the defendant (Genest v. Company, 75 N. H. 365) is not in point. It relates to the introduction of independent impeaching evidence, and has no application to cross-examination of the witness whose integrity is called in question.

Exception overruled.