Case ID: conn_108/html/0733-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel J. Buckley vs. Charles Spirt.
    Third Judicial District, Bridgeport,
    October Term, 1928.
    
      
       Wheeleb, C. J., Maltbie, Haines and Banks, Js.
    Argued October 30th
    decided December 18th, 1928.
    
      J. Gregory Lynch, with whom, on the brief, was James M. Lynch, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      Richardson Bronson, for the appellee (defendant).
    
      
      By stipulation of counsel this case was heard by four Justices-
    
   Per Curiam.

The trial court found that the evidence offered by the parties was inadequate to support their respective claims and was not entitled to judicial credence. This conclusion is final unless harmful error was made in some of the rulings on evidence complained of. The only error assigned which requires consideration is that as to the ruling admitting a page from the criminal docket of the City Court of Waterbury as a record of a judgment of that court for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the plaintiff, who was a witness in his own behalf, over plaintiff’s objection that it was not a judgment of conviction of himself in that court.

An examination of this record shows that it names the plaintiff as the person charged, specifies the nature of the complaint, states the plea of the defendant •therein, together with a finding of guilty, and orders the accused to pay the stated fine and costs and to stand committed to jail thirty days and until judgment is complied with. This page also bears an entry of the payment of the gross amount of the fine and costs. The record thus gives the time the case was continued to, and since no other date appears it must be taken as the date of sentence; it also declares the finding of guilty, that is the judgment and the sentence. The entire record is signed by the clerk of the court. These are the essentials of a valid judgment. O’Connell v. Hotchkiss, 44 Conn. 51, 54; Banach v. Bohinski, 107 Conn. 156, 159, 139 Atl. 688.

The record was properly admitted.

There is no error.