New-York tribune., 1905-12-18
CONNECTICUT
ATWOOD LOSES HIS CASE
.Supreme Court UphoIds 4chon OF
Common Pleas.

New-Haven. Dec II CSpeciaD.-By decision
Of the Supreme Court. D. Preston Atwood iossS
his test case against MIS-. Anne Mclean BUN
.nghafn, of watertown. by which he proposeu
To prove his constitutional right 20 collect on NJ
formation supplied against delinquent adi'iiii'
traitors of estates. The Supreme court Turns
down the Atwood appeal from the Co'iiii''i' .
Pleas Court of Fairfield County. mus 'la' N,%'
court made no error il ruling against MI a.
= ,,e,r-ra +be ,,laintiff that he has no
further right than to correct u'
for his information ,,,o,,+bs
,7-, ,..e has heer hanging fire for some iiohti
- ,os one of the Iegacies handed down 10 'iio
co,,rfs by the last legislature Ihere "e
her of other such legacies by that lesisi', - ~,
among them the Savings Bank lax ID" o-'1 -
.,,d,-ee. salary case and if there was no oIheI
trood reason why the last legislature si'o"iu 10
atteupted to increase the pay of the SuaUe jus
suc, a reason could be found in the lac' 1A1'
g gave the courts so much to do alter its own
ass,,unr,an+ In only few recent years have
the Connecticut courts had so many hho''S
,,-ob,enos 10 decide left to it by General AS
sembiy. ,,-,-,-
The Atwood case was one of the most striking
instances of the naive faith which the last AS
sernbly seemed to have IN the State 9uolciary'
Previous TO that legislature the statutes pro
vided that an informant against dennquent ao-
-ntntstrators was entitled to the sum OF S-4o DIS
the forfeiture for failure to comply with the
law on the part OF administrators, plus cosls'
II was generally known that there were large
number Of such neglects OF duty by ao1nlrllS-
traitors. but no one had been found to have a
sufficient nerve to inform against them and
collect the S240 in each case D. Preston Atwood
had the nerve, He brought upward Of two hun
dred suits on or about May, 1904. expecting to
net a tidy fortune under the law then in force
The result was panic among neglectful admin
;strators. Many of them hurried to pay up ana
finish their business in connection with estates
Some more started their attorneys. and in short
time the State was in 4 mild Juror over the
matter. The feeling high against At
wood that the matter was taken to the legis-
iature Of 1906. The General Assembly took pity
on the neglectful administrators and passed a
law repeating the old law and allowing paltry
81 and costs in each of the cases Mir. Atwood
had brought This was done while the Atwood
cases were pending.
It was provided by later act of that legislature
that any defendant against Mr.. Atwood might,
before trial. tender the 81 and accrued costs, and
that should Mr.. Atwood refuse to accept the
same he might whistle for the rest of the $40.
In the case which has now been decided Mrs
Buckingham offered the 81 and accrued costs,
but Mr.. Atwood refused to accept them The
whistling solo of the latter was then begun Mr..
Atwood brought suit Mrs Bucktnghans
answer was that she had complied with the re
peal law Mr.. ATWOOD QenurreQ on Ino STOUnu
OF unconstitutionality OF the repeal act, and the
Common Pleas Court would have none Of it.
The plaintiff then appealed to the Supreme
Court in order TO test the consttutionality OF
the Law. The Supreme Court now finds that the
Common Pleas Court OF Fairfield County was
correct, and Mr.. Atwood has the privilege or &C
cepting 81 for each of the cases he brought
The grounds taken by the Supreme Court IN
this varied The opinion itself was
Y rittea by Judge Prentice. and was concurred in
by the remaining judges. 1t refers to that sec
ton of the revised statutes which provides that
the repeal OF an act shall not AFFECT any SUIT
pending st the time OF the repeal for the recOV-
cry of a forfeiture incurred under the act re-
pealed, and that the passage or repeal Of an act
should not affect any action then pending. But,
the Supreme Court holds the repeal in question
t'was effectual not only to prevent the institu-
tion of actions for future delinQuencies, but
also to prevent the bringing or such actions Tor
past ones" The court holds that lit is a well
settled rule that in the absence Of a saving
statute the right to bring suit 20 recover q for
feiture falls with the act which provides it
There saving clause in the present re-
pealing act.''
The court also holds IN this interesting case
that the section Of the revised statutes expressly
provides that there should be forfeiture in
Cured in any case where the delinquent. before
suit is brought makes to the Court Of Probate an
acceptable excuse for his delay. This is one OF
the conditions of forfeiture Persons who had
escaped suits might be in neglect, but none Of
them had become subject to the penalty of the
statute.
as to the claim Of 1Ir. Atwood that the act of
the legislature repeating the old law was uncon-
stitutional in that 1t retroactive, the Su-
preme Court holds that he is wrong, inasnuch
as statutes should not be construed having
a retroactive effect unless their terms show
clearly a legislative intention that they should
so operate" Mr.. Atwood viii have the oppor-
tunity TO puzzle this out at his leisure. He now
receives 81 for his trouble, and the last legis-
1ature has the pleasure of knowing that at
least OF its several puzzles has been solved by
the courts.