Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1909-03-02
JUDGE BROWNS FINDINGS
IN JUNK DEALERS CASE.
Gives Copies Of His Decision to the
Attorneys in the Matter.

In the city court on Monday morn
Ing when the case of the state VS.. the
three junk dealers came UP according
to continuance and Judge Brown gave
his decision as he minated a few
days ago, furnishing the attorneys in
the case. copies of his finding, which
is as follows:
INSERT COURT nbj DICK vyopn
The law as to legal jeopardy Is well
settled and there ran be no dispute as
to this principle Of law. A person cam
not be put in jeopardy a. second time
on the same criminal charge, after ne
has been once tried before a court of
competent and final jurisdiction. Rare
ly does this question arise. ] do not
r.member prior to this time the ques-
ton was ever raised in this court.
1 do not understand that there now
Is any question raised here as to this
principal Of law but it Is rather a
question of fact to which we are to ap-
ply this well defined proposition Of
law.
The real point in this matter is SIM
ply this: Did the city court which tried
these same accused parties on the one
and the same charge as now before
the court, which was heard in August,
1908. after a full hearing, discharged
ed all of said parties, have final juriS-
diction of the matters on trial.
1t was final Jurisdiction, If the court
considered the possible punishment
that can be inflicted by this court, to
wit, 5000 fine and six months in Jail.
was sufficient for these men, provided
the charge had been proved against
them. 1t would with this condition
have been just as final so far as the
state was concerned as In the trial OF
a case of intoxication. The court in
either case would be trying something
absolutely in its Jurisdiction, and II
would be, as far as the states interests
are concerned, as final as any possible
trial in the superior court with jury.
In the case on trial the state I'M
doubtedly claims to have new evidence,
which was not known to them at the
time of former trial, and which, II now
presented, might change the former de-
cfsion of the court. To be denied an
opportunity to present their evidence
seems a hardship for the state, but II
the facts upon examination show there
was final jurisdiction at former trial.
the states representatives cannot
greatly complain. 1t only remains for
the proper determination of the case
to know what was in the mind of the
court on the former trial. The follow
ing Is the finding of the court on that
trial:
1. That the evidence presented was
insufficient to warrant holding these
parties.
2. That the court, II it had found
any one or all Of them guilty upon the
evidence presented, would have inf1ict-
ed such a punishment as would have
been within the maximum punishment
allowed said court.
To support this view Of the city
court as to the proper punishment In
the event Of the accused being found
guilty. would refer to the punishment
of Gertz and Lewis In the superior
court who were principals in this
crime, in which a fine Of $50 was i'm
posed upon each. 1t Is true, however,
think. Gertz and Lewis had been in
Jail awhile awaiting trial.
If this court trying these cases had
even considered that the evidence pre-
scented did not warrant conviction on
this charge and discharged the accused,
but did consider crime alleged. If prov
en-, such as to remand greater punish
ment than that court allowed to this
court, then they could be presented
again, and 1t would not be putting
these men twice In jeopardy, as the
trial could not be termed a final juris-
dictfon. This Is, In my mind, the clear
distinction as to the question OF final
Jurisdiction in this case. II I consid-
cred I was trying these men for a
crime which should be punished with
6. fine Of 5000 or less and a sentence to
Jail Of six months or less, then there
was final jurisdiction exercised in this
case. I did consider this sufficient
punishment at time of trial and there
fore overTule demurrer and sustain
plea In bar
In may say, IN conclusion. Judges OF
courts very naturally differ In penal
ties given to criminals convicted before
them. tt has been my policy in the
disposition of cases before the court to
mete out sentences up to the limit OF
the jurisdiction Of the court wherever
that seems adequate punishment, rath-
er than to bind over such cases to the
expense to the state and also labor for
the states attorney.