The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1905-01-27
IMPORTANT

IMPORTANT BRIEF PRESENTED
BY LAWYER ARVINE, OF NEW
HAVEN.
Hartford, Jan. 26.SThe supreme
court chamber at the ! capitol was
crowded with representative men from
various parts of the state this after
noon when the judiciary committee of
the legislature held a hearing on the
bills aimed at the repeal of the exist
ing statute under which D. Preston At
wood of Bridgeport brought hundreds
Of suits against delinquent administra-
tors, executors, and trustees of estates
in Connecticut, on which the fees had
not been paid. The bills under consid-
Grafton included one senate and two
house measures. all of similar import.
Lawyers representing various defend
ants in the suits brought by Mr.. At
wood and counsel for Mr. Atwood pre-
scented arguments before the committee
and answered many questions asked by
different members Of the committee.
Mr.. Atwood himself was present and
at the suggestion of Senator KeneaIly
replied personally to some inquiries.
His appearance was unexpected and
many curious eyes We're upon him as
he came from the back of the cham
Der where he had been sitting unnotic-
ed and stood in front of the chairman's
desk. ~. -
Earliss r. Arvine of New Haven, APP
peared as one. Of the counsel for j..
Preston Atwood. Mr.. Arvine presented
elaborate briefs before the Judiciary
committee on the hearing in the Atwood
matters. In his brief Mr.. Arvine said:
What would ordinarily be said of the
policy of law which, by repeating the
punishment, not only let's the offender
escape, but Furnishes the detective by
depriving him of his reward and leav-
ing him to pay his expenses? What
would ordinarily be thought of a pro-
posed repeating act the avoWed purpose
of which was to deprive the detective of
his reward? %-
Mr.. Atwood has done that which the
statute authorized and invited him to
do. The repeal proposes, without any
Judicial inquiry into the merits of his
suits, to permit the offenders to go I'M
punished and to punish him by leaving
him to pay thousands of dollars of ex-
penses which he has incurred in doing
"a part Of the police work of the state.
What is the peculiar element of moral
wrong in Mr.. Atwood's suits? If Mr..
Atwood has brought suits which the
law does not authorize the courts can
take care of that matter and no legisla-
tive interference is required, but as he
l1s1c h,anY, atf
law has provided for how can there be
any just interference on the part Of the
Legislature?
IF it Is claimed that aside from the
present emergency the law on its mer-
its ought to be repealed it is a question
which we do not need to go into. The
fact that 1t has been retained through
so many successive revisions, and that
it is by the revisors that the penalty
has been Increased, and by them also
that the share Of the penalty formerly
given to the state is now given to the
informer, is the strongest evidence that,
in the opinion of the able lawyers who
have revised the statutes and of the
successive legislatures, the right of ac-
tion should be given to everybody. 1t is
idle to claim that the statute has been
neglected or overlooked. The changes
through which it has passed show that
it has received careful attention.
Probate Judge %Stoughton, of East
Hartford, spoke in behalf of Mr.. At
wood. and Morris w. Seymour, of
Bridgeport, Mr.. Perkins, of Norwich,
and F. w. Williams, of New Milford,
spoke against the Atwood suits. Leo
Davis, of Norfolk, favored the dismissal
of the suits. - ~ \