The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-11-08
Judge Earnest Simpson Returns Cases Here
,cOntinued from Page I,

rom Page D
 the establishment of an early trial date, and apparently are not pre- pairing any further action which might cause it's delay.
 Because of these conditions, it is possible that the trial will start be- fore the first day of December.
 The complete text of Judge Siinp- sons ruling which brings the case back to Waterbury for trial is as follows:
 STATE OF CONNECTICUT vs
 T. FRANK HAYES, EFT AL Superior Court, New Haven Coun-
 ty, at Waterbury, November
 6, 1888.
 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
 ON MOTIONS FOR RE-ARGU-
 MENT AND MOTION TO
 RESCIND ORDER TRANS
 HERRING THESE CASES TO
 THE SUPERIOR COURT AT
 NEW HAVEN.
 Upon this matter coming before the court on the 4th instant the Court passed upon the motion to re-argue, and over-ruled the claim that the Court no longer had jurisdiction to entertain motion to reScind it's previous order. This is in accordance with well eStab- lished law and practice that a court has control of its judgment during the session at which it was rendered. Tn the case of Tyler V. Aspinwall, 73 Conn, 497, Judge Torrance, in speaking for the Court, said of the power of the court to vacate or set aside a re- corded judgment, "the authorities are agreed that it may be exer- lcised during the term at which the judgment was rendered, sub stantially at the discretion of the court" citing the following quo- tation from Bronson V. Schulten, 104 U. s. 40, 415.
 Ut is a general rule of the law, that all the judgments, de- crees or other orders of the courts, however conclusive in their character, are under the control of the court which pro- nounces them during the term at which they are rendered or entered of record, and that they may be set aside, vacated, modi- fled or annulled by the court"
 Upon the hearing of the original motion for change of venue, the Court came to the conclusion, which it still entertains, that suf- ficient cause had not been shown to justify it in granting a change of venue, and denied that motion.
 In view of the fact that in the opinion of the Court the court house at Waterbury did not have adequate facilities for the proper trial of the case, it came to the conclusion that for this reason they ought not to be tried in Wa terbury, and also was of the opin- ion that it could in its discretion and of its own motion transfer them to the Superior Court at New Haven where it was Stipu- lated the facilities were adequate, and ordered the cases to be trans ferred to the Superior Court sit- ting at New Haven.
 The State now, upon it's motion to rescind that order, challenges the Jurisdiction of the Superior Court at New Haven to hear the cases. If under the statutes the Superior Court at New Haven has no jurisdiction to hear them, then the transfer was not within the discretion of the court. Also if the Court has no such jurisdiction, a trial at New Haven would be a nullity. This would be true, whe- ther the verdicts should be rend- cred for or against the accused, and would necessarily result in new trials. This peradventure has led the Court to re-exanine the question of jurisdiction.
 While upon further examina- tion, the Court is not convinced that under the statutes the Court at New Haven is without jurisdic- tion, the subject is one in regard to which reasonably minded judges, equally desirous of ar- irving at the right conclusion, might disagree. The arguments and briefs now before the Court confirm that such is the case. while the question of jurisdiction is purely a question of law, a prac- tical question is also involved. Should the Court adhere to its former conclusion and insist the cases be tried at New Haven, when other reasonably minded judges might reach a different conclusion as to the jurisdiction of the court at New Haven, or should it take the view that as long as there is a reasonable doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favor of the cases being tried where there is no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court. In a procedural question like this, the Court is inclined to the latter view, especially since the question cannot be finally de- termined by the Supreme Court until after the trial in New Ha- ven, should the cases be tried there.
 This, of course means that the cases will have to be tried in Waterbury, notwithstanding the inadequacy If the facilities. This would be better for both parties than one trial at New Haven and possibly another trial at Water bury at later date.
 It is therefore ordered that the order transferring the cases to the Superior Court at New Haven be and hereby is rescinded. Other wise the order is affirmed.
 SIMPSON. J.