Cited by

Provided a timely request is made, see Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 819-20, 408 A.2d 422, 423 (1979), actions in assumpsit may be tried to a jury, Murphy & Sons, Inc. v. Peters, 95 N.H. 275, 276, 62 A.2d 718, 720 (1948); see Coos Lumber Co. v. Builders Lumber & Supply Co., 104 N.H. 404, 406, 188 A.2d 330, 331 (1963) (allowing jury to decide damages in breach of contract ac

Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 821, 408 A.2d 422, 424 (1979) (“It is settled law that an objection to evidence is waived by one who subsequently introduces the samé evidénce.”).

While we have held that part I, article 20 of our State Constitution affords the parties to a suit involving legal claims the right to a jury trial, McElroy v. Gaffney, 129 N.H. 382, 386, 529 A.2d 889, 891 (1987), we have also held that this right may be waived, Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 820, 408 A.2d 422, 423 (1979) (citing Nassif Realty Corp. v. National Fire Ins.

Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 821-22, 408 A.2d 422, 424 (1979); see also State v. Fecteau, 121 N.H. 1003, 1006, 437 A.2d 294, 296 (1981); State v. Sullivan, 121 N.H. 301, 304, 428 A.2d 1247, 1249-50 (1981).

We need not address these issues, as they are not properly before us. See Progressive Survey, Inc. v. Pearson, 120 N.H. 58, 61, 410 A.2d 1123, 1125 (1980); Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 821, 408 A.2d 422, 424 (1979).

We fail to see how the judge’s comments indicated bias or prejudiced the case but need not reach that issue.

Ackerman v. March, 116 N.H. 64, 352 A.2d 717 (1976); Cyr v. Sanborn, 101 N.H. 245, 140 A.2d 92 (1958); see Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 408 A.2d 422 (1979).

State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 409 A.2d 1336 (1979); Sperl v. Sperl, 119 N.H. 818, 408 A.2d 422 (1979).

*61 We note, however, that this theory of recovery was not urged at trial and thus is not available here.

We therefore decline to consider evidence that should have been put before the board.

The rule *937 applies in all criminal or civil cases.

He also asserted in his answer to defendant’s motion to reconsider that the court’s findings and decree were “absolutely correct in every respect.” We find that plaintiff waived any further consideration of his claim by his acquiescence to the court’s decree.

Without a transcript, we cannot say that there was not sufficient evidence supplied by this testimony to support the court’s order, thereby curing any possible defect.