The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1938-10-15
Jury Minutes Will
Not Be Inspected
Continued from Page u

NSOAAV4AAbCA
pare their cases properly without
the minutes because Of the oath OF
secrecy which was administered to
the witnesses.
Justice Maltbie states that this
secrecy is only applicable to that
which transpired within the jury
room.
One Defendant Absent
with the Waterbury cases so near
trial, one of the defendants, Enoch
e. Borgnaes, an accountant Is not
yet accounted for. Another defend
ant, Harry Mackenzie Of Bethel,
alleged lobbyist, has not as yet been
put to plea, although he was ar
rested the day after the grand jury
issued its report.
The remaining "A defendants
have pleaded not guilty to the
charge and elected to be tried by
. jury.
Complete Text
The complete text Of Chief JUS
tice Maltibe's ruling on the two
grand jury appeals Is as follows:
The Opinion
The text OF the opinion follows:
Maltbie, G. ]. In the first Of
those cases the defendant has
been charged with criminal Of
Tense by the indictment of a
grand jury. In the other two, in
formations have been brought
against the defendants as a re-
suit Of q report made by a spe-
cial grand jury. All three cases
are before us upon motions for
permission to inspect the min
utes OF the grand juries. In the
first case the trial court granted
the motion and the state has APP
pealed, but in the other two the
trial court In a different county
denied the motions and the de-
fendants have appealed. What
ever difference, II any, there may
DO In the rights Of the defend
ants TO inspect the minutes, there
is no distinction as regards the
question presented upon those
motions to erase the appeals. The
question before us Is whether the
rulings upon the motions are
final judgments within the stat
ute giving a right Of appeal to
this court, General statutes, $3.50.
We have said, referring to q
ruling granting a motion to erase
a case from the docket, that "any
order or proceeding which dis
poses Of the cause and places
the parties out Of court Is final"
Norton v. Shore Line Electric
Ry. Co., "a Conn. "a, 81, 70 Att.
5s7; O'Briens petition, 10 Con.
46, SO, So Att. TIT.
It Is also true that q decision
which concludes the right Of a
party TO the relief he claims may
be a final Judgment although the
preceding in which that decision
Is reached does not dispose Of the
entire case but 1t still remains
IN court for adjudication Of other
claims for relief involving the
same or other parties. Practice
book, 372 Bunnell v. Berlin Iron
Bridge Co., So Conn. "a, 81, 80
All. 500: Banca Commercials TIA
LANA Trust Co. v. Westminster
Artistico Works, In, 1903 Conn.
304, 307. 142 All. 838; Enfield v.
Hamilton, ITO Conn. $40, 800, l48,
Att. 1853; Amman v. Conecti~
cut Light 6c Power Co., lit Conn.
$50. 23s. 1877, All. IT'S. Thus an APP
peal lies from an order made in
the course Of receivership pro-
ceedings which determines the
right Of party to the relief he
claims. Guarantee Trust g. State
Deposit Co.: Philadelphia, r. 81
N. Il. r. Co.. so Conn. TOO, TIA
80 All. 7e2; Barber v. Interna-
tional Co., "a Conn. $50, 657, 81
All. 057: Raymond v. Gilman,
III Conn. sos, Gil, ISL Att. 24s. SO
II lies from an order appointing
appraiser In condemnation pro-
cedings. New Milfrod Water Co.
v. Watson, rs Conn. 237, 242, SO
All. o47; Bristol v. Bristol Water
Co, IS Conn. 663. $40, "a All. 3i4:
Antman v. Connecticut Light g.
Power Co, supra. In the last
case we say: Ordinarily, the
judgment appointing appraisers
closes the judicial part Of the
proceedings, what remains to be
done being OF an administrative
character, as the appraisers dis
charge only q quasi judicial func-
tion." SO a judment disposing
Of equitable isues may be final
although the action remains In
court for the disposition of a
claim for damages at law. En-
held v. Hamilton, supra.
In Banca Commercials Italia
ne co. v. Westchester Artistico
Works, Inc. supra, we said with
reference TO final judgments in
the appeal statute: THE test
lies not In the nature Of the judg-
ment. but in its effect as conclud-
ing the rights Of some or all of
the parties: II such rights are con-
cIuded, 50 that further proceed
ings after entry Of the order or
decree Of the court cannot affect
him, then the judgment is final
Judgment from which an appeal
lies.r we did not use the word
rights" In that opinion In an
Inclusive sense.
There are many rulings In the
course Of an action by which
rights are determined which are
inferlocutory In their nature and
Renewable only upon an appeal
taken from q judgment later rem
dsFgd France v. Munson, 1913
Conn. 100. lot, la2. att. 700. Such
rulings are those made In the
course 81 the proceeding. the OBJ
.res Of which Is TO bring the
esrtias a. ana present 70 the