Waterbury evening Democrat., 1890-03-13
SUTTON Vs DOHERTY.
The Opinion of the Supreme Court (
 Errors.

Errors.
 It will be remembered that the su- preme court of errors advised Judge Bradstreet of the district court to rem der judgment for the defendants in the celebrated case of James Sutton against the selectmen of Waterbury. The reasons for the finding of the su- preme court have recently been received by l.. F. Burpee, attorney for the defen- dants, and are as follows:
 Supreme Court of Errors, Hartford District, March Term, 1889. James Sutton vs John B. Doherty and
 others.
 OPINION OF THE COURTS. Park C. J. On the eighth day of October. A. D. 1888, the town of Water- bury voted to elect a superintendent of the highways of that town for the term | of one year from and after the first day of January, A. D. 1889; and afterwards at the same meeting and on the same day, without reconsidering or reScind- | ing this vote that had been passed, the town voted to appoint the plaintiff superintendent of the highways of the town for the term of one year from and | after the first day of that month. | On the third day of January, A. D., | 1884, the town voted, at a special town meeting duly warned for this purpose, to appoint a superintendent of high ways, who should hold office till the first day of January, A. D., 1889, and should a vacancy occur in this office, the selectmen of the town should fill it till the next annual meeting of the town, when the town should fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.
 At this town meeting another vote was passed, declaring that the first selectlnan should be superintendent oi the highways of the town for the time being.
 Under this vote the first selectman was superintendent of the highways o1 the town down to the eight day of Octo Der 1888, when the vote was passed ap pointing the plaintiff superintendent fol one year from the first day of thi: month.
 The defendant, Doherty, was elected first selectman of the town on the frs Monday of October. 1887, and was re elected the following year. He was act ing as such when the plaintiff was ap pointed superintendent of the highway as aforesaid, and was then filling the office of superintendent, and had filled the same from the first day of th' month.
 Hence it appears, that from the frs day of October, 1888, to the eighth day O the same month, there was no vacancy in the office of superintendent of high ways, and consequently the att emptee appointment of the plaintiff during thi period was null and void.
 It further appears. that the appoint ment of the plaintiff superintendent was contrary to the vote passed on th' third day of January, A. D., 1884 which was that all vacancies il the office of superintendent should be filled for the remainder of th' time intervening before the first day o January, A. D.. 1889 and it was like wise contrary to the vote passed at thu meeting that appointed the pl siptiff which was to appoint a superintendent for one year from the tirst day of Janu ary, A. D.. 1889.
 We advise the district court of Water bury to render judgment for the defend ants. In this opinion the other judge cOncurred.
 A true copy of the original opinion. J. HOOKER, Reporter.