The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1906-06-09
BILL never Became
Law declares Court
DECISION ON MEASURE REDUC-
ING TAX ON SAYINGS BANK
DEPOSITS.

That the Governor Signed 1t, the Su-
preme Court of Errors Holds, Does
Not Matter-Scratched His Signature
OF When Legislative Comnfttee
Called for 1t Later--Matter Placed
Before the Court as a Test Case--De-
cisions in Other Cases.
Hartford, Ct., June 8.-The bill pre-
sented in the last state legislature and
later signed by the governor reducing
the tax on savings bank deposits never
became law, according to q decision
handed down to-day by the supreme
court of errors of the state of Connect
icut. That the governor signed the bill,
holds the court, does not matter. Two
questions were raised, however, which
the court did not pass on. The bill pro-
viding for a reduction in the tax on
savings bank deposits passed In the
senate, and the house acted favoraibly
on it and then re-considered its action.
At that time the bill went to the gov
ernor, who signed it, but scratched or
| his signature when committee went
to him to get the bill back again.
The question was whether the bill had
become a law or not. On the advice OF
Attorney-General King the Secretary Of
State did not include the measure in
| the bills passed. A test case was
agreed upon and presented to the supe-
rior court of Hartford county by the
Savings bank Of New London. The
banks lawyers and Attorney General
King agreed on statement Of fact.
There was an argument in regard to
| the law, however, and it was agreed
that the matter should be passed on by
the supreme court.
The court says the record of the Sec
retary of State shows that the bill did
not become law. 1t holds that the
original bill was Mot properly passed
by both houses, and that by the jour
nal Of the house it is shown that the
bill was removed from the house with
out authority and that the house got It
back The court also holds that no bills
can be properly presented to the COVER
nor for signature until properly passed.
; The questions raised, ID not passed ON,
whether a bill unengrossed can be pro-
perly presented to the governor for APP
proval, and also whether in case the
) governor should sign such bill, it would
: become operative.
! The amount due under the previous
f act from the Savings bank OF New
: London was $10516.01. The bank paid
, 1878. 70, all that would be required II
the new measure was a law. The SUI
preme court advised the superior court
3 to order the bank to pay the difference,
4 s., ,S37.2S.
/ In addition to this case, decisions
f were handed down in four other cases,
4 One Of these was the case brought by
n the Metropolitan Life Insurance COM
pany against Insurance Commissioner
!. Theron Upson. This was an applica,
g ton for writ of mandamus to compel
: the commissioner to certify to the cons
h troller that certain sums paid by thN
: company as taxes upon premiums re
q ceived from business in this state
should be refunded. In the superior
g court Judge Robinson sustained the de,
v PENDANTS motion to quash the alterna'
+ tive writ and the insurance company
II appealed. No error is found. Opinion
h by Justice Hall, all concurring
Another case is that of Otto BrostI
q and wife against William f. Thompson
1t was an action for wrongful conver'
= sion of property brought to and triet
= by the court Of common pleas of Fair
! field county before Judge Curtis. Tht
Il Judgment was for the defendant, ant
- an appeal was taken by the plaintiff
~ No error is found. Opinion by Chic
! Justice Torrance, all concurring.
=, Error is found in the case of Horati
, N Clark VS.. James B. Wooster ct al
The case is an action to recover dam
" ages for breach of warranty in the sal
:, of a horse. The case was brought i
y y the district court of Waterbury an
= tried before jury before Judge CoWel
10 "A verdict was rendered and judgmen
given against the defendants and a
~ appeal was taken by one Of them. Er
le ror is found and a new trial grantet
Opinion by Chief Justice Torrance "a
VI concurring.
1s The fourth case was that of Georg
~ b. Clark, and was an application to tn
supreme court under the provisions (
ve Chapter 5S, Public Acts of 1905 for a
order requiring Judge Bennett, of th
common pleas court of New Have
county to make and file finding in a
action now pending in the court, Tn
~ supreme court dismissed the applice