The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-10-25

there ought and would he such other Superior Court sitting in Waterbury during then time Islen- toned. In that event there would be no court-ro0m available for use while empaneling Q jury,
 nor as has been suggested, for the use of the states attorney, his staff and accountants. With two Superior Courts sitting at the same time, both conceiv- ably with juries, and the Com mon Pleas Court on the first floor, there would be no proper conveniences for the members of the different juries, not to men, ton the number of parties, their attorneys and the states attor- ney and his staff, and the many witnesses which may be in att tendance on the various courts. Much confusion and inconvenience would necessarily result which, 1t seems to the Court, would nili- tate against the proper presenta- tion and consideration of these cases.
 This does not mean. however, that a transfer of these cases to another county should be or dered. Whether such an order should be made rests upon other important considerations.
 Section 6473 of the General Statutes provides that each per- son charged with an offense shall be tried in the county wherein 1t shall have been committe, ex- cept in certain instances not at present pertinent. At common law and also by statute (section 6474) the Court may upon motion order any criminal case pending in such court to be transferred to the Superior Court to another county. The privilege is open either to the accused or to the state. No question is raised as to this being the law in this state. It is also too well settled to re- quire the citation of authorities, that whether the motion be made by the accused or the state 1t is encumbent upon the mover to show. or at least make 1t reasonably appear, that @ fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county wherein the offenSe was committed. It is true, as is said in many cases, that the granting of the motion is in the discretion of the Court. But that means sound and legal discretion and not arbitrary. As was said by Chief Justice Wheeler in the case of State vs Chapman, 1o3 Conn.,. 453, "It is within the rea- reasonable discretion of the trial court to grant change of venue when 1t clearly appears that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county where the venue is laid in the indictment. The burden of showing this is upon the mover of the change of venue"
 The question then before the Court is whether the Staet has shown that 1t clearly appears that it cannot receive a fair and im- partial trial in New Haven county. The Court is persuaded that 1t has not so shown. Whether or not women jurors may sit upon the trial is a mooted question, although they are eligible to do so if selected. But I can see no relation between inconvenience to lady jurors and the obtaining of a fair and impartial trial. If the cases are to be tried in Wa terbury 1t would be inconvenient for the handling. safekeeping and orderly presentation of the many exhibits to the court. But such inconvenience, while 1t may oc- casion expense and result in the trial being more or less pro- tracted and tedious, does not im- ply that the State may not ob- tain fair and impartial trial,
 It appears from the information that seven of the accused are of- ficials of the City of Waterbury which, 1t Is alleged, they con- spired to cheat and defraud. From these facts, an inference might arise that they could not receive fair and impartial trial in the City of Waterbury. But that is not the claim. The claim is that because of these facts due ad- ministration of justice requires that said trial should not be held in said city" (Waterhury).
 No facts are shown why due administration of justice may not be drawn therefrom. and 1t seems to the Court that that would be to the detriment of the accused rather than the state, taking the history of the proceedings into consideration.
 It is true that the selection of persons for jury service from the City of Waterbury was not made according to law, and not being properly selected. are ineligible to sit in this or any case. But 1t does not appear that that defect permeates the entire jury lists for New Haven County, nor in fact any town outside of the City of Waterbury. It Is well settled in this state that the Court may we'll excuse jurors from any particular town for any reasonable cause.
 Inasmuch as the case ought not to be tried in the City of Water bury, for the reasons heretofore stated, and as the Court cannot transfer them to another county for cause shown, the question naturally arises as to where they can or should be tried.
 It was suggested in arguments, at least by inference, that when the Superior Court was sitting in the City of Waterbury it was sit- ting as a Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury and that a transfer of cases there pend- ing to else where in New Haven County would be 8 change of venue. It is not a fact. however, that the Superior Court when sitting at Waterbury is sitting as Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury. The Judi