Morning journal and courier., 1882-06-07
qOnrual artD Courier.
Wednesday Morning. June 2, ES52.
The Court Record.
supreme Court of Errors.

The Court Record.
 supreme Court of Errors.
 This court came in yesterday morning dt 10 o'clock.
 Prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Beardsley. All of the judges but Judge Granger were on the bench Cases on the docket were disposed of as follows:
 Meriden Savings bank vs. Home Mutual Fire Insurance company, arguments to be heard in Hartford June 2G. John M. Aimes vs. Benjamin T. Clark ct al., withdrawn Ephraim N. Peck ct ux. vs. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad company con- tinued. E. s. Wheeler & Go. vs A. w. Par melee, continued. Loyal Moulthrop James M. Belden, withdrawn.
 The following cases will be submitted on | briefs Chauncey Allen vs. New Haven and Northampton company. Hiram E. Welton vs. town of Wolcott. Same vs. same (both | reservations).
 The case of Wales Terrell & Co. vs. Beech | Manufacturing company was contiaued.
 The first case assigned yesterday was that of New Haven Steamboat company vs. Sar gent & Go. Governor Ingerson and Mir. Doo- little appeared for the plaintiffs and MT. Beach for the defendants It is reservation to ascertain who entitled to wharfage fees at the East street wharf, or in fact whether the Steamboat company the city or J. B. Sargent & Go. are the owners of the land or water front where the East street sewer was built. The case has been in the courts for several years and the rights of the city and owners of property fronting on the harbor will probably be finally decided by l this case.
 The case of William Bryan. jr., ct als VI. town of Branford was then considered. The suit arose out of petition for the layout of a highway, the town being the aggrieved l party. The case comes to this court on motion in error, the town of Branford being the aggrieved party. The grounds for the | motion are as follows
 First-The court erred in overruling the | remonstrance of the town of Branford to the I acceptance of the report of the committee, and in accepting said report; and more par | ticularly
 l Second. The court in deciding the ques- 1 tions raised on said remonstrance, erred in l holding that the committee rightfully re- l ceived the testimony of MT. Hill and MT. Fowler as experts on the cost of the pro- posed bridge and that such action of the committee was not a sufficient ground of re- I monstrance.
 Third. The court also erred in ruling that ! the allegations of said remonstrance concern | ing the testimony of MT. Linsley, in connec- 1 tion with the facts found, on the hearing of the remonstrance concerning the same, were insufficient in the law to constitute 8 just ground of remonstrance to the acceptance of said report
 Fourth. The court also erred in ruling that the eight specific objections to the bond, as set out in the remonstrance were several ly insufficient in the law, and that the con- mittee rightly overruled the same, and that the said objections, together or severally, constituted no sufficient ground of remon- strance.
 Fifth. The court erred in ruling that the committee rightly considered the fact and
 needs of the travel for pleasure or recreation
 as set out in the finding on the remonstrance,
 as affecting the question of common conven
 fence and necessity of the proposed road, in favor thereof and in holding that such action of the committee was not sufficient ground of remonstrance.
 Sixth. The court erred in ruling that the committee rightfully. received the bond, re
 ferred to in said remonstrance, in evidence
 at the time 1t was received, and in holding
 that the action of the committee in reference
 thereto was not sufficient cause of remon
 strance
 In the case of James (''Chip") Smith vs
 the State of Connecticut it was ordered that an answer be filed to the plea in abatement of the State's attorney at 10 o'clock to-day
 Mr. Doolittles claim that the writ of errol
 ought to be abated and dismissed is based upon the following:
 First-That the supposed errors in law sci forth in said writ as follows, to wit that tht , court erred;
 l. In accepting verdict of murder in the
 first degree upon the indictment aforesaid l ?. In adjudging the prisoner guilty O.
 murder in the first degree are improperly |, joined in said writ of error with supposed y errors in fact, to wit that the court erred
 fin failing to file with the clerk of said cour
 the written requests upon the rendition O. d said verdict and the charge of the court il 2 writing upon the questions of law so pre- ' ' sented''
 Secondhand for further cause of abate ment the State of Connecticut assigns ant
 alleges follows: that the Supreme Cour
 of Errors to which said writ of error is mad,
 returnable has no jurisdiction over any aues
 tion of fact, and that 1t is alleged in said wri : of error matter of fact that the plaintiff u in error requested the court to charge tn,
 jury in accordance with certain alleged writ
 ten requests set forth in said writ of error a a and that said Supreme Court of Errors ha h no power to try and determine question
 and matter of fact, and this the defendant i, , error is ready to verify. n Mir. Doolittle will argue the case for tn
 State and Messrs. Blydenburgh and Fox fo
 the plaintiff.
 Court ad fourned unta this morning at | : o'clock.