Morning journal and courier., 1884-04-16

The late Henry j. johnson, who died on
Monday aged 50, was formerly in business in
Waterbury, and for the last twelve years
resident of this city. He was an uncle of 81.
J. Prudden, of the firm of Bowditch & Prud-
den, and was a member of the Dwight Place
church.
Rev. E NJ jerome, of Fair Haven, who
was taken i'll while officiating at the Nash
street mission Sunday evening with an attack
of vertigo, is confined to his house, but is
recovering
Isaac Anderson has been elected moderator,
Theodore F. Booth, Ward Coe, Milo D. Tut
tie, Leslie Moulthrop and Julius Twiss, socie-
ty's committee; George B. Burton, treasur-
er; John S. Forbes, clerk, and George E.
Spare, auditor, at Calvary Baptist church.
Frank Hinman was taken i'll with nervous
prostration yesterday while bicycle riding on
Chapel street and tainted. falling heavily.
He was seriously bruised.
The RI Rev. Bishop Mcmahon sails from
New York on the 26th on the Oregon for
Liverpool, on his way to Rome.
Mr.. George E. MaItby and family, of this
city, have arrived home from California.
Captain Charles Il. Townshend, of this
city, is in Europe and returns in May.
David Smith, telegraph lineman in Hart
ford, fell and broke his leg near the thigh
on Monday night
H. A. Roel. railroad contractor, residing
corner of State and Fair streets, is recover
ing from severe attack of rheumatism.
Rev. Mr.. -Naylin, of Shelton, has accepted
call rendered him by the Baptist church in
Colchester and will locate there in May.
Prof. Timothy Dwight conducted the fu-
neral services at the house on Elm street at
Miss Fosters funeral services on the14th inst
and Dr. HARDWOOD at the grave.
Sperry ve. Troup and Butler.
A Demurrer Argued-DecfsiOn Reserved.
Yesterday afternoon before Chief Justice
Park arguments were made on the demurrer
to complaint sgainst Alexander Troup and
Edward Boiler, charged with writing and
publishing matter in which N. D. Sperry
was likened to ''Uriah Heep."
s Mr.. Hamilton, counsel for the defendants,
read from the statutes of 1880 to show that
it did away with the statute of 1865. The
hDAhAAb "a6 OAON5AS AANoA OhO
statute of 1865 and afterward the States
attorney filed a new count under the 1880
statute. Hencs the demurrer made to the
complaint. large number of authorities
were quoted. The theory was that the de-
scribing of the same crime, in a later statute,
acted as a repeal of the former one.
The question is: Do the same
things mentioned in the first statute
apply in the second statute? If
they do then why might not man be tried
twice for the same ofense-a thing which
the law does not allow. If under the law of
1865 q conviction had been obtained, could
one also be obtained for the same offense I'M
der the law of 1880? Of course it could not
be done under the constitution. So if undeS
two counts person could be convicted un-
der both, where the same set of facts we're
given, it would be the same thing as trying a
man twice for the Same crime.
Again the informations do not state where
the alleged abusive matter was published
whether at the town pump or in the edito-
rial columns of a newspaper. The complaint
mvst specify where and how the matter was
Published.
Mr.. Hamilton was followed by Sir. Doo-
little and ex-Judge Blydenburgh in opposi-
ton to the demurrer as not being sufficient
in law.
The court reserved its decision.