2 Conn. 38 (Conn. 1816), Newell v. State

Citation2 Conn. 38
Opinion JudgeSWIFT, Ch. J.
Party NameNEWELL v. THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: IN ERROR
AttorneyEdwards and T. S. Williams, for the plaintiff in error, contended, E. Perkins, for the state
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut, Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 38

2 Conn. 38 (Conn. 1816)

NEWELL

v.

THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT: IN ERROR

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, New-Haven

November, 1816

Page 39

THIS was an information against Newell, for striking and emitting bills, to be used as a medium of trade, contrary to the statute. The offence was alleged to have been committed in September, 1814. The information was exhibited to a justice of the peace, and a warrant issued, in August, 1815. In May, 1816, the defendant was arrested, examined, and a recognizance taken for his appearance at the next superior court. At the superior court, the defendant pleaded, that the information was not exhibited within one year after the offence was committed. The replication averred, that an information was, within one year, exhibited by the state's attorney, to a justice of the peace having cognizance of the offence. To this replication there was a demurrer. The superior court adjudged the replication sufficient; whereupon this writ of error was brought.

Judgment affirmed.

Edwards and T. S. Williams, for the plaintiff in error, contended, that the prosecution was barred by the statute, which provides " that no person shall be indicted, prosecuted, informed against, complained of, or compelled to answer, before any court, assistant, or justice of the peace, within this state, for the breach of any penal law, or for other crime or misdemeanour, by reason whereof a forfeiture belongs to any public treasury, unless the indictment, presentment, information, or complaint, be made and exhibited within one year after the offence is committed." a This information is not to be considered as exhibited until it came before the court having jurisdiction of the offence. Whether the accused be guilty of the offence charged, the justice has no authority to determine: he can only enquire whether there be sufficient evidence to hold to trial. The signing and issuing of the warrant do not prevent the limitation taking effect: they are not the acts required for that purpose. The question before a grand-jury, and before a justice of the peace, is the same, viz. is there probable cause? But a complaint laid before a grand-jury by the attorney, is not exhibited within the meaning of the statute. Our construction will not afford impunity to offenders; inasmuch as the attorney may exhibit an information to a court having jurisdiction of the offence, and such court will issue a...

To continue reading

Request your trial