Burnham v. Butler
Burnham v. Butler.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.
Evidence which proves to have been improperly admitted may be stricken out, under proper instructions to the jury; and it is a question of fact, to be determined at the trial term, when this may be done.
Judge of Probate v. Stone, 41 N. H. 598, 607;
Zollar v. Janvrin, 47 N. H. 324, 326;
Harris v. Holmes, 30 Vt. 352 . In his knowledge of the trial, the presiding justice has better means of deciding the question of fact than others can have who were not at the trial.
Fuller v. Bailey, 58 N. H. 71, 72;
Hamaker v. Eberley, 2 Binn. 506, 510 . If it appears to him, after verdict, that the jury have been prejudiced by the objectionable evidence, he is warranted in setting the verdict aside.
Case discharged.
Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.