Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1881-06-08
SournaI ann Courier.
Local News.
The Court Record.
Supreme Court OF Errors.

Supreme Court OF ErrOfss
The June term of this court opened in the
Superior Court room yesterday morning at
10 O'Clock with full bench, Chief Justice
Park presiding.
The following decisions were rendered in
cases previously argued:
Finch vs.. New Haven; new trial granted
no report The plaintiff recovered from the
town of East Haven for damage by surface
water.
Hall Vs. City of Nerd en- no error, rea-
sons by Loomis. This was an appeal from
en- assessment for the extension of Crown
street The Superior Court found that the
city need not pay Hall the sum for which he
appealed.
Hine VS.. Roberts; new trial advised rea-
sons by Judge Carpenter. This was a sew
ing machine case in which note and an or
gan was involved. The decision here is ad-
verse to the sewing machine agent, who is
plaintiff.
The first case argued was that of Elisha
Hart of Guilford vs.. Jay E. Russell of Bran
ford. The plaintiff, who is deputy sheriff,
sued for fees in serving writs for the defend
ant, an attorney, who brings bills as an Off
set against the claim of the deputy sheriff.
In the lower court Judgment was rendered
for the plaintiff. The case was argued by
Zacher for plaintiff and Jay E. Russell for
self.
The case of William S. Kelly vs. George s.
Wizard went over until next term, as did that
also of Edward S. Rowland vs.. Smith & Co.
The case of State VS.. Frederick Neuner
was argued on a motion for new trial by
State Attorney Doolittle for the State and
W. B. Stoddard for the defendant. The de-
PENDANT was sentenced to State prison for
seven years for rape committed in Meri-
den. The claim made by his counsel was
that the accused, convicted of rape, ought TO
have been allowed challenge of ten jurors
instead of four under the law of 1875 The
provision at that time was that ten Jurors
could be challenged in an offense where the
Imprisonment was in the State prison for
life, and only four where it was for a less
period. Rape was then life offense. In
1878 it was changed so as to be not less than
three years or for life. The accused was,
under this, permitted only four challenges
| and claimed ten.
Chauncey Allen VS. New Haven and North
ampton railroad was next argued on a mo
| ton in error. Mr.. Doolittle argued for the
plaintiff, and John s. Beach for the defend
| ant. The plaintiff in january, 1879, while
crossing the track at Hazel street, this city
| where the rails projected at an unlawful
| height, was thrown from his sleigh and Sc
verely injured. The Superior Court at it,
january term rendered a verdict for the
plaintiff to recover 81 900 damages. The de
| PENDANTS claim manifest error in decree ant
| appeal to this court.
In the case of Meriden Savings bank VS.
| Home Mutual Fire Insurance company, o
Meriden it was agreed by counsel that tn
matter should be submitted on briefs befor
August 20 next.
In the case of Talcott H. Russell, receiver
vs. Willis Bristol ct al, executors, the argu
| ments were commenced late in the afternoon
but were not concluded. It Is suit brough
to recover for alleged stock subscribed in tn
American National Life and Trust company
but which is denied by the defendants. L
the January term, 1881, of the Superio
Court the case was reserved for the advic
and consideration of the Supreme Court O
Errors S. E. Baldwin and t. H. Russo
for plaintiff, John S. Beach and Fl. Stoddar
| for defendant.
Court adjourned until this morning at l
O'Clock.