144 A. 263 HELEN KERZTY v. MARY WARDYMKA. Supreme Court of New Hampshire Hillsborough. Decided January 2, 1929. Where an attorney undertakes in argument to discuss the meaning or prompting motives of his own words in evidence, all doubts must be resolved against him; and if he makes an enigmatical statement in argument the test […]
Articles Tagged: 144 A. 263
COHEN v. PIENKOWSKI, 83 N.H. 586 (1929)
144 A. 263 MAX COHEN v. STEVE PIENKOWSKI. Supreme Court of New Hampshire Rockingham. Decided January 2, 1929. CASE. During the argument for the plaintiff to the jury the defendant objected to certain statements made in it. It did not appear either from the stenographer’s notes or from the court’s recollection that exception was taken […]