Buckley v. Spirt
| Decision Date | 18 December 1928 |
| Citation | 108 Conn. 733,143 A. 844 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BUCKLEY v. SPIRT. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Harry J. Beardsley, Judge.
Action by Daniel J. Buckley against Charles Spirt to recover money loaned. Tried to the court. Judgment for defendant for costs, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
J. Gregory Lynch and James M. Lynch, both of Waterbury, for appellant.
Richardson Bronson, of Waterbury, for appellee.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, and BANKS, JJ.
The trial court found that the evidence offered by the parties was inadequate to support their respective claims and was not entitled to judicial credence. This conclusion is final, unless harmful error was made in some of the rulings on evidence complained of. The only error assigned which requires consideration is that as to the ruling admitting a page from the criminal docket of the city court of Waterbury as a record of a judgment of that court for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the plaintiff who was a witness in his own behalf over plaintiff's objection that it was not a judgment of conviction of himself in that court.
An examination of this record shows that it names the plaintiff as the person charged, specifies the nature of the complaint, states the plea of the defendant therein, together with a finding of guilty, and orders the accused to pay the stated fine and costs, and to stand committed to jail 30 days, and until judgment is complied with. This page also bears an entry of the payment of the gross amount of the fine and costs. The record thus gives the time the case was continued to, and, since no other date appears, it must be taken as the date of sentence; it also declares the finding of guilty, that is, the judgment and the sentence. The entire record is signed by the clerk of the court. These are the essentials of a valid judgment. O'Connell v. Hotchkiss, 44 Conn. 51, 54; Banach v. Bohinski, 107 Conn. 156, 159, 139 A. 688.
The record was properly admitted.
There is no error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mobley, 6-337571
...The docket sheet and docket entries are admissible evidence of the judgment rendered. Buckley v. Spirt, supra, 108 Conn. at 733-34, 143 A. 844; Smith v. Brockett, 69 Conn. 492, 502, 38 A. 57 (1897); Gillespie v. Gallant, 1 Conn.Cir. 594, 596, 24 Conn.Sup. 357, 190 A.2d 607 (1963); 30 Am.Jur......
-
State v. Couture
...place, may be presumed to be accurate. Such entries, duly authenticated, may stand as adequate evidence of a judgment. Buckley v. Spirt, 108 Conn. 733, 143 A. 844. But it is the judgment file, signed by the judge or clerk of the court, which is the proper evidence of the rendition of the ju......
-
State v. Lindsay
... ... be accurate. Such entries, duly authenticated, may stand as ... adequate evidence of a judgment. Buckley v. Spirt, ... 108 Conn. 733, 143 A. 844. But it is the judgment file, ... signed by the judge or clerk of the court, which is the ... proper ... ...