Cited by

*611 The plaintiffs also cite Hanrahan v. City of Portsmouth, 119 N.H. 944 (1979), and argue that applying a de novo standard of review negates our warning that the historic district commission statutes require more than “merely pondering or reflecting on the issues.” Hanrahan, 119 N.H. at 948.

Id.; see State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 936-37, 409 A.2d 1336, 1336 (1979).

Relying on Hanrahan v. City of Portsmouth, 119 N.H. 944, 948, 409 A.2d 1336, 1339 (1979), they argue that unsubstantiated assertions by counsel are insufficient as a matter of law to establish entitlement to a special exception.

n requires that the defendant make a specific objection to provide the trial court an opportunity to correct any error it may have made, see Davis, 139 N.H. at 192-93, 650 A.2d at 1390; Eldredge, 135 N.H. at 564, 607 A.2d at 618, and does not enable “counsel [to] comb the record on a treasure hunt for issues never properly brought before the trial judge.” State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 937, 409 A.2d 1336, 1336 (1979) (quotation omitted).

generally Hanrahan v. City of Portsmouth, 119 N.H. 944, 947, 409 A.2d 1336, 1339 (1979).

State v. Fournier, 123 N.H. 777, 779, 465 A.2d 898, 900 (1983); State v. Niquette, 122 N.H. 870, 873-74, 451 A.2d 1292, 1294 (1982); State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 937, 409 A.2d 1336, 1336 (1979) (new counsel cannot comb the record on a treasure hunt for issues never properly brought before the trial judge).

the number of trains operated by the railroad at the crossing, and [4] all other relevant facts and circumstances.” See Hanrahan v. City of Portsmouth, 119 N.H. 944, 409 A.2d 1336 (1979) (factors to be “considered” in historic district zoning).

Appeal of Portsmouth Trust Co., 120 N.H. 753, 759, 423 A.2d 603, 606 (1980); Hanrahan v. City of Portsmouth, 119 N.H. 944, 947-48, 409 A.2d 1336, 1338-39 (1979).

Errors discovered by combing the record after trial and never properly presented to the trial judge should not be utilized to set aside a verdict.

f its or their capital funds; (c) its or their prospects; (d) the character of the management; and (e) whether or not the effect of granting the application would be to expand the size of the bank and extent of its business beyond limits consistent with adequate and sound banking, the public interest and the preservation of competition in the field of banking.” See Hanrahan v. City of Portsmouth, 119 N.H. 944, 947, 409 A.2d 1336, 1338-39 (1979).

This rule has been recently reaffirmed, State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 409 A.2d 1336 (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).

Martineau v. Perrin, 119 N.H. 529, 404 A.2d 1100 (1979); State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 409 A.2d 1336 (1979).

State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 409 A.2d 1336 (1979); State v. Taschler, 116 N.H. 218, 356 A.2d 697 (1976).

We see no reason to waive our procedural requirement of contemporaneous objection and exception, and accordingly, reject the defendant’s arguments.

State v. Josselin, 119 N.H. 936, 409 A.2d 1336 (1979); State v. Boisvert, 119 N.H. 174, 400 A.2d 48 (1979); State v. Meloon, 119 N.H. 76, 397 A.2d 1041 (1979).