Gould v. Hutchins

Walker, J. As the case is understood, the trial judge ruled' that the experimental evidence offered by the defendant, of the liability of the ice to frighten horses, was as a matter of law incompetent. In view of the settled law of this state (Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401; Gordon v. Railroad, 58 N. H. 396; D ow v. Weare, 68 N. H. 345; Folsom v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 454, 461), the evidence was clearly competent, unless it was too remote-as a matter of fact. But as the evidence was not excluded upon the ground of remoteness, but because legally incompetent (Challis v. Lake, 71 N. H. 90, 95; Watson v. Twombly, 60 N. H. 491, 493), the order must be, Exception sustained. All concurred.