Alex Andrizinsky v. John Phillips
| Decision Date | 05 June 1923 |
| Citation | 121 A. 435,97 Vt. 21 |
| Parties | ALEX ANDRIZINSKY v. JOHN PHILLIPS |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
January Term, 1923.
ACTION OF TORT for an assault and battery. Pleas, the general issue justification, and son-assault demesne, and replication de injuria. Trial by jury in the Fair Haven Municipal Court, E D. Raymond, municipal judge, presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted. The opinion states the case.
Judgment affirmed.
C V. Poulin for the defendant.
James E. Sennett for the plaintiff.
Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, MILES, [*] and SLACK, JJ.
This case is here on exceptions from the rulings of the Fair Haven Municipal Court. The defendant seasonably objected to the drawing of a jury from the jury list on file on the ground that the judge did not prepare such list and place the same on file until after February 10, 1922, the time limited by the terms of section 1651 of the General Laws. The objection was overruled and exception saved. Thereupon a jury was drawn from said list and the case came on for trial. Before the jury was sworn, the same question was again saved by exception to proceeding with the trial.
G. L. 1651 provides that etc. And by Section 1652, the jury for the trial of a cause is to be drawn from such list.
The preparation and keeping on file of such a list is a duty placed upon public officers, in which the public is interested. The fixing of the time for doing it is for the convenience, efficiency, and expeditiousness in the administration of justice, and not a limitation of the exercise of it. The statute contains no words negativing or denying the power to file such list after the time named; nor is there anything in the character of the act to be performed, or in the manner and mode of its performance, or in its effect as to public or private rights, from which it must be presumed that the Legislature contemplated that it better not be performed at all than at any time other than that specified in the statute. The time so specified must therefore be regarded as directory to the municipal judges and not as a limitation of their powers....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Twist Drill Co. v. Erwin M. Harvey, Commr. of Taxes
... ... Aetna Chemical Co. , 98 Vt ... 169, 173, 126 A. 588, and Andrizinsky v ... Phillips , 97 Vt. 21, 22, 121 A. 435. The section ... ...
-
Hartland Prop. LLC v. Town of Hartland
...structure of the statute that suggests that compliance with that timeline is essential to a valid assessment. See Andrizinsky v. Phillips, 97 Vt. 21, 23, 121 A. 435, 435 (1923) ("[W]here the object contemplated by the legislature can not be carried into effect, by any other construction, th......
-
State v. Love
...148 Vt. at 174, 531 A.2d at 893 (holding legislative intent must be "clearly expressed"); see generally Andrizinsky v. Phillips, 97 Vt. 21, 22, 121 A. 435, 435 (1923) ("The statute contains no words negativing or denying the power to file such list after the time named; nor is there anythin......
-
Spaulding & Kimball Co. v. Aetna Chemical Co
... ... its own injunction order. Sturgis v. Knapp, ... supra; Andrizinsky v ... Phillips, 97 Vt. 21, 121 A. 435. There is no ... apparent reason ... ...