Bedard v. Cunneen
| Decision Date | 17 April 1930 |
| Citation | 149 A. 890,111 Conn. 338 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BEDARD v. CUNNEEN ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Allyn L. Brown, Judge.
Petition by Frank Bedard against Frederick C. Cunneen and others for a certificate of election declaring that the petitioner was elected a grand juror of the town of Brooklyn at an election duly held. The superior court issued the certificate as prayed, and respondents appeal.
No error.
M. Joseph Blumenfeld, of Hartford, for appellants.
Elbert L. Darbie, of Danielson, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.
The petition alleged these facts: The town of Brooklyn, in the year 1928, and for many years prior thereto, has held an annual town meeting on the first Monday of October, at each of which it has elected six grand jurors in accordance with the statute. The powers of grand jurors in the town are not vested in any other prosecuting officer or officers. Neither at the annual meeting held on the first Monday of October 1928, nor at any subsequent time, has the town held a meeting changing the number of grand jurors or prescribing the mode in which they should be voted for. On the first Monday of October, 1929, the town held its first biennial election by virtue of chapter 256 of the Special Acts of 1929, which special act makes no provision for the election of grand jurors. On the ballots used in that election there appeared the names of six candidates for the office of grand juror, three as candidates of the Republican party and three as candidates of the Democratic party. The petitioner was one of the candidates of the Republican party and received 155 votes, being the lowest number of votes cast for any candidate. The moderator of the meeting declared that the five candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast were elected, and that the petitioner was not elected.
The respondents filed an answer admitting in the first paragraph all of the allegations of the petition and alleging in the second paragraph that the warning of the town meeting called for the election of only five grand jurors. The petitioner demurred to the affirmative allegation contained in the second paragraph of the answer on the ground that the number of grand jurors to be elected was prescribed by statute, and could not be changed by the authority issuing the warning for the town meeting. The demurrer was sustained and it was agreed that judgment should be entered without further hearing; the facts alleged in the second paragraph being conceded to be true.
The record is defective in failing to include a judgment file. Approved practice requires that a judgment file be drawn and filed, and thereafter the certificate of election based upon the judgment be issued under the seal of the court. Denny v. Pratt, 104 Conn. 396, 398, 133 A. 107.
The only question raised upon the appeal is the correctness of the ruling upon the demurrer. The pleading demurred to constituted a good defense to the petition only if the facts therein alleged, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrett v. State
...State ex rel. Moriarty v. Smith, 72 Conn. 572, 574, 45 A. 355; Ryan v. Knights of Columbus, 82 Conn. 91, 92, 72 A. 574; Bedard v. Cunneen, 111 Conn. 338, 341, 149 A. 890. The plaintiff bases its first reason of demurrer on Sanger v. Bridgeport, 124 Conn. 183, 198 A. 746, 116 A.L.R. 1031, wh......
-
Hoblitzelle v. Frechette
...be drawn and filed and that the certificate of election based upon the judgment be issued under the seal of the court. Bedard v. Cunneen, 111 Conn. 338, 340, 149A. 890; Denny v. Pratt, 104 Conn. 396, 398, 133 A. 107. Finally, the statute authorizes the issuance of a writ of mandamus to enfo......
-
Fowler v. Donnelly
...favored the defendant in Thomas v. Bowen, supra, is a presumption of fact, and such presumptions do not aid a pleading. Bedard v. Cunneen, 111 Conn. 338, 149 A. 890. Truth is a defense and must be alleged by the defendant, Thomas v. Bowen, supra; Clark on Code Pleading, 2d Ed., page 620; an......
-
Welles v. Town of East Windsor
...(1968). There is no requirement that the published notice describe the proposed action in detail or with exactitude. Bedard v. Cunneen, 111 Conn. 338, 341, 149 A. 890 (1930); Bull v. Warren, 36 Conn. 83, 85 (1869); and see Gravel Hill School District v. Old Farm School District, 55 Conn. 24......