Case Name: Perrin v. Sikes
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1802
Citations: 1 Day 19
Docket Number: 
Parties: Perrin v. Sikes.
Judges: 
Reporter: Day's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 19–21

Head Matter:
Perrin v. Sikes.
In the Court below,
Reuben Sikes, Plaintiff,- Thomas Perrin, Ezra Clapp, Rowland Weller, and John Mather, Defendants.
This Court will make no order touching the records of another Court. In an action of debt, to recover double the value of a specific article, as a penalty, by statute, plaintiff may recover a less suns than he demanded.
A grant, by the General Assembly, of an exclusive privilege, with a penalty, to a common informer, against any one who, should violate it, to forfeit a specific article, or double ⅛⅜ value thereof, is valid.
T. HIS was an action of debt, in favour of the plaintiff as a common informer, to recover a penalty incurred by the defendants, in running a stage “ on the post-road “ from Hartford leading to Boston, through the northern “ part of the town of Hartford, the town of Windsor, “ and a great part of the town of Sufftdd,” in violation of a grant made by the General Assembly to the plaintiff, the exclusive privilege ol' carrying passengers, by the stage, “ on the post-road leading to Boston as far as the “ Massachusetts line,” during the pleasure of the Assembly. The grant declared, that whosoever should set up and drive a stage, for the purpose of carrying passengers, on the same road, should forfeit his stage and horses, “ or double the value thereof.” The declaration stated, that the defendants’ stage and horses were of the value of g 700, and demanded § 1400 as the penalty.
1802.
On the plea of owe nothing, the jury found for the plaintiff, with S 692 damages.
The defendants moved in arrest of judgment, that the declaration was insufficient; and, that the verdict was for a less sum than the demand. The declaration was adjudged sufficient, and the motion in arrest insufficient.
On inspecting the record, it appeared, that the Clerk of the Superior Court had, by mistake, entered up judgment against one of the defendants, by the name of Roxv~ land Miller, whereas he was described in the original writ, by the name of Rowland Weller.
Edwards, (of New-Haven) and Huntington, (of Suf-field) for the defendant in error,
moved the Court, to permit the Clerk of the Superior Court to amend his record.
Dwight and Terry, for the plaintiffs in error,
opposed the motion, on the ground, that this Court could not interpose, even to give permission respecting the records of another court.
The Court denied the motion.
The Counsel for, the defendants,
haying procured the Clerk of the Superior Court to amend his record in the particular specified, moved, that the writ of error here might be made conformable to the record of the Court below, as now produced by the Clerk ; which was allowed, and done accordingly.
On the merits of the writ of error, the Counsel for the plaintiffs urged, 1. That as they had set up a stage to run to W estfield and Albany, through part of Suffield, it was not a violation of Sikes’s grant, as that contemplated only a stage going to Boston : 2. That a less sum was given than demanded, which was error in an action of debt: 3. That the grant was void, the penalty being the horses and carriages, or double the vcdue thereof.
For the defendant in error it was urged, that the spirit of the grant was, that he should enjoy the exclusive right to transport passengers Jo theMassachusetts line ; and tKafTf the defendants below would set up a stage interfering therewith, they ought to obtain permission of the General Assembly ,; that in such an action of debt as this the plaintiff may recover less than the sum demanded ; and that the grant was such as the General Assembly thought proper to make, and the Court could not say it was void.

Opinion:
|⅜ THE WHOLE COURT,
The judgment was affirmed.