Where the evidence justified a finding by the trial Court that the proposed erection of a building within a restricted residence district of a city would constitute a fire hazard, result in undue congestion and be detrimental to the public health and safety in that district, the petition was properly denied. Whether a motion to amend pleadings should be granted after a decree has been entered is discretionary with the trial Court. In a review by the Superior Court of a decision of the zoning board of adjustment, it is discretionary with the trial Court to admit testimony of members of that board as experts.
BURQUE, J.
The findings of the Court are amply supported by and fully justified on the evidence. See Sundeen v. Rogers, 83 N.H. 253; Stone v. Cray, 89 N.H. 483; Vogel v. Board c. of Manchester, 92 N.H. 195. It certainly cannot be said that no reasonable person could have reached such a conclusion. It would almost seem the contrary should be true; to wit, that no reasonable person would have reached a different conclusion.
Plaintiff's exception to the denial of his motion to further amend his bill after the filing of the Court's findings and rulings avails him nothing. It was within the discretion of the Presiding Justice to either grant or deny such a motion after a decree had been entered. There was no error in the denial of the motion in the instant case, nor do we discover any error in the Court's rulings of law.
There was no error in admitting testimony of three members of the zoning board as experts. This was entirely within the discretion of the Presiding Justice, and no abuse thereof is apparent.
The question of value was of very little consequence, if any, and the Court placed no reliance on that testimony.
Exceptions overruled.
All concurred.