
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 26, 1996                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                                                                      ____________________        No. 95-1649                                  GEM REALTY TRUST,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                        FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON, ET AL.,                                Defendants, Appellees.                                                                                      ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Shane Devine, Senior U.S. District Judge]                                       __________________________                                                                                      ____________________                                        Before                               Torruella, Chief Judge,                                          ___________                           Cyr and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                           ______________                                                                                      ____________________             James H. Gambrill,  with whom Engel, Gearreald and  Gardner, P.A.             _________________             ___________________________________        was on brief for appellant.             Bruce  W. Felmly,  with whom  Byrne J.  Decker and  McLane, Graf,             ________________              ________________      _____________        Raulerson & Middleton, P.A. were on brief for appellees.        ___________________________                                                                                      ____________________                                                                                      ____________________                    Per Curiam.   GEM Realty Trust appeals  from a district                    Per Curiam.                    __________          court  judgment     based  on a  jury  verdict     dismissing its          challenge  to  a mortgage  foreclosure  sale  conducted by  First          National  Bank  of  Boston  against certain  New  Hampshire  real          property owned by GEM.  On appeal, GEM presses various objections          to the  district court's  jury instructions and  evidentiary rul-          ings.  Following full  briefing and oral argument, we  affirm the          district court  judgment and  comment briefly on  but two  claims          raised by GEM on appeal.                      A careful review of the record and the controlling  New          Hampshire precedent  persuades us that the  district court fairly          and accurately conveyed the governing principles of New Hampshire          law in its instructions to the jury.  See Davet v. Maccarone, 973                                                    _____    _________          F.2d  22, 26 (1st  Cir. 1992),  for our  standard of  review, and          Murphy  v. Financial Dev. Corp.,  495 A.2d 1245  (N.H. 1985), for          ______     ____________________          the applicable  law.  And  the district  court did not  abuse its          discretion, Bates v. Shearson  Lehman Bros., 42 F.3d 79,  83 (1st                      _____    ______________________          Cir.  1994), either  by  excluding the  marginally probative  and          potentially confusing evidence relating to the first  forbearance          agreement  between the parties, see  Fed. R. Evid.  401-03, or by                                          ___          sustaining  the Bank's hearsay objection, see  Fed. R. Evid. 801,                                                    ___          to the Katsaros  real estate appraisal  as plainly cumulative  in          light of other appraisals before the jury, see id. 403.                                                       ___ ___                    Accordingly, the district court judgment is affirmed.                                  _______________________________________                                          2
