
    Carroll,
    Dec., 1897.
    Pitman v. Mauran.
    Whether a verdict should be set aside as against the evidence, is a question-of fact determinable at the trial term.
    Exceptions to instructions are waived, unless taken before the jury retire.
    Assumpsit. Trial by jury and verdict for the defendant. The day after the verdict was rendered the plaintiff moved to set it aside as against the law and evidence; and two or three days afterward filed a written motion to set it aside on the same ground and also in arrest of judgment and for a new trial,, specifying certain particulars wherein he claimed it was against the law and the evidence. The errors of law claimed were in-the instructions which the court gave or failed to give the jury. There were no exceptions to the charge, and no requests for instructions which were not granted. The motions were denied,, and the plaintiff excepted.
    
      George W. M. Pitman and Josiah H. Hobbs, for the plaintiff*.'
    
      Fred B. Osgood, for the defendant.
   Wallace, J.

Whether the verdict is against the evidence, is a question of fact to be decided at the trial term. Fuller v. Bailey, 58 N. H. 71; Lefavor v. Smith, 58 N. H. 125; Kelley v. Woodward, 58 N. H. 153; Daniels v. Lebanon, 58 N. H. 284; Hovey v. Brown, 59 N. H. 114; Little v. Upham, 64 N. H. 279; Lucier v. Larose, 66 N. H. 141.

If the plaintiff desired different or additional instructions, he. should have asked for them at the trial. If an exception was-desired to the charge, it should have been taken before the jury retired. If there was any error, it could have been, and doubtless would have been, corrected. Such exceptions not taken at that time are waived, and cannot be taken afterward. Rules of Court, No. 54,—56 N. H. 590; Moore v. Ross, 11 N. H. 547, 557; State v. Rye, 35 N. H. 368, 381; Boyce v. Railroad, 43 N. H. 627; State v. Gorham, 55 N. H. 152; Bank v. Ferguson, 58 N. H. 403; Dow v. Merrill, 65 N. H. 107.

Exceptions overruled.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.  