her sister’s to purchase the land necessary for his real estate project in May 1971. When she discovered this use of her stock in the summer of 1971, she was furious and told Baghdady so. To mollify her, she says, Baghdady promised for the first time to make her a partner in the real estate project. Baghdady insists that he used his own money to purchase the land, and that he did not borrow the money from his sisters, available from the proceeds of the sale of the Teledyne stock, until mid-summer 1971. Given this dispute, evidence tending to show that Baghdady secured the stock sale amounts from his sisters immediately prior to the close of his land purchase cannot be characterized as “only tangentially related to the issue at hand.” Elgabri v. Lekas, 964 F.2d 1255, 1261 (1st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). As the plaintiff explains in her brief on
holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative holding that the exclusion of marginally relevant evidence was within the courts discretion