The refusal of the court to stop a trial by jury upon discovery that one of the jurors is a party to a cause triable by jury pending at the same term, in which counsel engaged on the trial are counsel for him, is not subject to exception. Whether evidence should be excluded for remoteness is a question of fact, determinable at the trial term.
CARPENTER, J.
The exceptions present no question of law. Whether justice required that the trial should be stopped, and whether, by reason of the proximity of the places, proof of the state of the weather in one town had a tendency to show what it was in the other, were questions of fact to be determined at the trial term. Temple v. Sumner, Smith (N.H.) 226; State v. Howard, 17 N.H. 171, 186; Wentworth v. Jefferson, 60 N.H. 158; Norton v. Wilbur, 5 Gray 7; State v. Boston Maine Railroad, 58 N.H. 410, 412; Amoskeag Mfg. Co. v. Head, 59 N.H. 332, 338; Tilton v. Society, 60 N.H. 377, 384; Cook v. New Durham, 64 N.H. 419; Smith v. Earle, 118 Mass. 531.
Exceptions overruled.
BLODGETT, J., did not sit: the others concurred.