Hudson v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 23 February 1926 |
| Citation | 104 Conn. 126,132 A. 404 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | HUDSON v. ROBERTS. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hartford County; Thomas J Malloy, Judge.
Charlotte Hudson instituted bastardy proceedings against George Roberts, who was bound over on a finding of probable cause to the court of common pleas, where defendant moved to erase the case from the docket. The court granted the motion and entered judgment thereon. Plaintiff appeals. Error; judgment set aside, with instructions to restore case to docket.
The record discloses that the plaintiff instituted bastardy proceedings by a written complaint containing the essential allegations, formally addressed to A. S. Bordon, a justice of the peace. She made oath to this complaint before Milton Nahum, a commissioner of the superior court for Hartford county, and he issued a warrant to arrest the defendant, and have him forthwith before the city court of the city of Hartford. This warrant was in the form employed in bastardy proceedings, and the defendant was arrested and duly brought before the city court of Hartford. In the city court the parties appeared, no objection was made on the ground of irregularity in the proceedings, and the parties entered into the following stipulation:
" It is hereby agreed by the defendant acting herein by his attorney Howard P. Drew, and the plaintiff acting herein by her attorney Milton Nahum, that the examination of the defendant in the above-entitled action is hereby waived without a public hearing, and that an order to that effect may be entered by the judge of the city court in chambers and that the defendant be hereby bound over to the court of common pleas for Hartford county, Hartford."
The city court thereupon found that probable cause existed, and adjudged that the defendant be bound by a sufficient surety to appear before the next court of common pleas for Hartford county to answer the charges in the complaint and abide the decision of that court. In the court of common pleas the parties appeared, a supplemental complaint was filed, and the defendant moved to erase the case from the docket for these reasons:
" Because the complainant made her complaint to one Abraham S. Bordon, Esq., a justice of the peace for the county of Hartford, but her oath was taken by one Milton Nahum, commissioner of the superior court for Hartford county, and for further reason that the process commanding the arrest of the body of the defendant was issued by the said Milton Nahum, commissioner of the superior court for Hartford county, and not by the authority before whom and to whom the said complainant made her complaint, contrary to the statute."
This motion the court granted.
Isaac Nassau, of Hartford, for appellant.
Howard P. Drew, of Hartford, for appellee.
CURTIS, J. (after stating the facts as above).
Assuming that, under the facts, there was an irregularity in the procedure followed, which would justify the dismissal of the proceedings on motion, if made in due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D'Andrea v. Rende
... ... not destroy the jurisdiction of the proceeding. It could be ... waived and would be waived if no appeal was taken from the ... judgment. Hudson v. Roberts, 104 Conn. 126, 132 A ... 404; Butterfield v. Brady, 111 Conn. 112, 149 A ... 252. The defendant had due notice of the hearing and ... ...
-
Brown v. Cato
...plea in abatement. Bennett's Appeal, 79 Conn. 578, 580, 65 A. 946; Kenney v. Blakeslee, 122 Conn. 242, 244, 188 A. 263; Hudson v. Roberts, 104 Conn. 126, 128, 132 A. 404. Jurisdiction is the power in a court to hear and determine the cause of action presented to it. Jurisdiction must exist ......
-
Seifert v. April
...merely formal or circumstantial defects and omissions which result in a complete failure to achieve any jurisdiction at all. Hudson v. Roberts, 104 Conn. 126; Clover Urban, supra; Persky v. Pizzili, supra; Murphy v. Elms Hotel et al, 104 Conn. 351, 21 R.C.L. 592, Sec. 140; Beall v. Blake, 1......
-
Turner v. Richardson
...A. 946. By failing to do so at the proper time, he waived his right to attack the irregularity. Brown v. Cato, supra; Hudson v. Roberts, 104 Conn. 126, 128, 132 A. 404. The defendant also claims that the court erred in denying his motion for a trial by jury. The motion was not filed within ......