Casmento v. Barlow Bros. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1910
• Citation: 76 A. 361,83 Conn. 180
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CASMENTO et al. v. BARLOW BROS. CO.

76 A. 361

83 Conn. 180

CASMENTO et al.

v. BARLOW BROS. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 14, 1910.

Appeal from District Court of Waterbury; Frederick M. Peasley, Judge.

Action by John Casmento and others against the Barlow Bros. Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Bronson & Lewis, for appellant.

Terrence F. Carniody, for appellees.

RORABACK, J. This action was brought to the district court of Waterbury on the first Tuseday of March, 1900, when one Henry W. Minor and James A. Peasley were entered as attorneys for the plaintiffs. On November 4, 1909, Peasley withdrew his appearance, and on the same day Terrence F. Carmody entered as attorney for the plaintiffs. The trial took place on November 5, 1909.

James A. Peasley is an attorney at law, and is a brother of Judge Peasley who presided at the trial of this case. James A. Peasley is about nine years younger than Judge Peasley. They are in no way associated in the practice of law, having independent offices on different streets in Waterbury. During a portion of the first day of the trial James A. Peasley was present in the courtroom but took no part in the trial. He occupied a chair during this time in a portion of the courtroom usually occupied by witnesses. Before beginning the trial, counsel for the defendant objected to proceeding before said Judge Peasley, on the ground that he was disqualified by reason of his relationship to James A. Peasley. Judge Peasley overruled this objection, and proceeded with the trial, the defendant excepting. Judge Peasley had no interest in the outcome of this action. It did not appear that James A. Peasley at the time of the trial had any interest in the result of the litigation.

The only ground of appeal is that the court erred in overruling the claim that Judge Peasley was legally disqualified to try the case. Section 496 of the General Statutes of 1902 provides that: "When there shall be so near a relationship between any judge or justice of peace and any party in any proceeding in court before him, as between father and son, brothers or uncle or nephew, by nature or marriage, or landlord and tenant; or when any judge or justice of the peace may be liable to contribute to the damages, costs, or expenses of any such proceeding, or when he may receive a direct pecuniary benefit by the determination thereof—he shall be disqualified to act, except as hereinafter provided."

Construing the word "party," used in the...