The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-04-17

1885, and announced on April TO- 1035, the defendants, Thomas Dill lane and Henry O'Connor, in ac- cordance with the provisions o1 Section 397 of the Connecticut Practice Book Q934) respectfully move for a reargument of this case and assign as grounds fol such request the following:
 l. A study of said decision in dicates that the supreme court o1 errors does not hold the registrar: (Dillane and O'Connor) to be Jointly responsible for the removal from the republican primary list of tho names set forth fin para graph 5 of the plaintiffs petition (R. r. 2).
 2. Said decision of the supreme court of errors does not hold that both the defendants (Dillane and O'Connor) violated the law in re- moving said names (Par. ]. IL. r. 9 from the Republican primary list. ~.
 O'Connor Name Unmentioncd
 3. Said decision of the supreme court of errors docs not hold that the defendant, O'Connor, took any action whatever in regard to the removal from the republican pri- mary list of 1893 of the names re- ferred to in Par. 5 of the plaintiffs petition, nor does the said dccision n hold that said O'Connor was re- sponsible for removal of said names.
 4. Said decision of the supreme cou.t of errors does not hold that the office of the republican regis trar (Dillane) and the office of the democratic registrar (O'Connor) should be declared vacant because of the removal of said names from the republican primary list.
 Failed In Allegations
 5. Said decision of the supreme court of errors failed to confine itself to the allegations of the plaintiffs amendment in relation to the duplication of names (R. F 5-6) which Is limited solely to the clairi that the names of the three thousand voters appeared on both the democratic and republican pri' mary list for 19S3, and that the de- fendants had failed and neglected to take any steps to remove these names from said lists.
 6. Said decision of the supreme court of errors incorrectly states that the statute is silent as to wher the registrars should act In refer. ence to duplication tMemo of SUI ,,..k 40 nf 34-85) whereas section 700 of tho General Statutes specifically states
 Citation in Writing
 "Such citation shall be in writ. ing. and shall state the time when and place where such persor shall appear. and shall De served upon or left at the usual place oi abode of such persons at least two days before the time fixed for such hearing upon such citation, which time shall not be less than one week before the next succeeding caucus or primary of such polit' ical party"
 2. Both the lower court and the supreme court of errors took judicial notice of the fact tha: the next caucus or primary after the preparation of 19a3 list had taken place was subseuuent to the time of trial of this case and in August Of 1934 (Mcmo Of Supreme Court, Page 1)
 No Moral Delinquency
 8. Said decision of the supreme Court of Errors incorrectly sta.es Supreme Court Memo P. 5) that the trial court in reference to sa,d duplication of names held that tho Applications occurred during q term of office which had expired before inc date of tho hearing in the lower court and that the m's- conduct in reference to said dupl, cations did not constitute moral delinquency, whereas the Trial Courts Memo tR. r. S-9l clearly indicates that the amendment of the plaintiffs complaint (R. P. 6-e) fii reference to applications was disposed of by the lower court solely on the ground that the al. legation was premature since de. fendants had until the following caucus time to correct their lists. (Trial Memo. E. F. 9). The cues.