Case Name: Scot v. Turner
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1790-01
Citations: 1 Root 163
Docket Number: 
Parties: Scot v. Turner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Scot v. Turner.
The jurisdiction of a justice to inflict a penalty or fine is limited to forty shillings. > >
A conviction for a second offense, which incurs an accumulated penalty, must he for the same kind of offense.
Where part of the charges in a declaration are answered by a special plea in bar, and not guilty is plead as to the rest, and the parties join in a demurrer to the special plea and issue upon not guilty — both must be answered in the judgment.
Weit OK Error; complaining of a judgment of tbe County Court, in an action of debt brought by Turner against Scot, upon the statute for regulating taverns, etc. and for suppressing unlicensed houses, etc. for the £6 penalty given for the second offense, alleging that he had sold victuals by the meal, hay and provender for horses, and spirituous liquors, by less quantities than the law allows, without license, and that he had been before convicted of said offense before Justice Parmela, as by Ms records, etc. by which, they being recited in the plea in bar, it appeared that the conviction was for selling spirituous liquors only, before Justice Parmela, and the fine £3.
The defendant plead a contract he had made when a licensed tavern-keeper, with certain persons to furnish them with victuals, hay, and provender, in excuse for his doing it; and as to his selling spirituous liquors as charged, he says he is not guilty. The plaintiff demurred to the special plea, and joined issue upon the plea of not guilty. The County Court gave judgment, that the defendant’s plea was insufficient, and for plaintiff to recover £6.
Errors assigned — 1st. That the offense Scott was convicted of before the justice, was for selling liquors, and the offense he was convicted of by demurrer before the County Court, was for selling victuals, hay, etc. which is a different offense. 2d. That said Justice Parmela had m> jurisdiction to try and convict the said Scot of said first offense.
Judgment —■ Manifest error, for both the causes assigned.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The general issue was joined upon the only material point in the declaration, but not decided; a justice's jurisdiction, in criminal prosecutions is limited to forty shil lings only, except to commit or bind to a higher court; the proceedings therefore before Justice Parmela, are void, being coram non juMce.