Kiernan v. Borst
| Decision Date | 30 October 1956 |
| Citation | 144 Conn. 1,126 A.2d 569 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Walter A. KIERNAN v. Harry M. BORST. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Robert C. Danaher, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
No appearance for appellee (plaintiff).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ.
On November 3, 1955, the defendant, Republican registrar of voters of the town of East Hartford, removed the plaintiff's name from the enrolment list of the Republican party in that town. From that action the plaintiff appealed to Hon. Francis C. Vignati, a judge of the East Hartford Town Court. He rendered judgment ordering the defendant to restore the plaintiff's name to the party list, and from that judgment the defendant has appealed.
The finding is not subject to modification in way beneficial to the defendant. It sets forth the following material facts: The plaintiff has been a resident of East Hartford for about fifty years, is an elector, and for about forty years has been enrolled as a Republican. At the election held in October, 1955, the Democratic nominee for president of the town council, the most important municipal office in the town, was John Torpey. The plaintiff considered Torpey to be the best qualified candidate for the office and advocated by letter to the Hartford Courant and otherwise that the Republicans indorse him. Between the date of the Republican town convention, September 12, and the date of the election, October 3, the plaintiff did nothing to assist the Republican party to elect its candidates; on the contrary, he telephoned about ten persons to request them to vote for Torpey. Although the plaintiff at the election voted for most of the Republican candidates, he did not participate actively in the campaign as a party worker. After the polls closed on October 3, he rode in an automobile in the Democratic victory parade. Following the election, the defendant had served upon the plaintiff a notice of a hearing, called to determine whether the plaintiff's name should be stricken from the rolls of the Republican party. The hearing, which the plaintiff attended and at which he was given opportunity to speak and to present witnesses, was held on October 28. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff was notified that his name had been removed from the rolls of the Republican party.
The trial judge reached the following conclusions: The plaintiff had the bona fide intention of affiliating with the Republican party. He was not affiliated with the Democratic party. He was supporting the principles and candidates of the Republican party and is entitled to have his name restored to the enrollment list of that party. The question to be decided is whether those conclusions were warranted upon the facts found.
The decision of the case is controlled by §§ 561d, 562d and 564d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes. Section 561d is entitled 'Erasure for party disaffiliation.' It provides that whenever the registrar of voters of any political party is of the opinion that any person on the enrollment list of that party is not in good faith a member of it, he shall cite that person to appear before him and the town or ward chairman of the party It was under this statute that the defendant took the action from which the plaintiff appealed.
Section 562d lists various acts which constitute prima facie evidence of party disaffiliation. They are enrollment in any other political party or organization, active affiliation with any other political party, knowingly being a candidate at any primary of another party, or being a candidate for office under the designation of another party, within two years prior to the date of the registrar's hearing.
The present action is authorized by § 564d, entitled 'Appeal from decision of registrars.' This section provides that any elector who is aggrieved by the removal of his name from an enrollment list may, within ten days after the removal, 'bring a petition before any judge of the superior court or court of common pleas, or to a judge of any municipal court having equitable jurisdiction in the town wherein the case arises, setting forth that the name of the petitioner has been unjustly or improperly removed from such list'. The section provides further that if, upon due hearing, the judge finds that the petitioner is entitled to relief, 'such judge shall issue an order directing such registrar * * * to forthwith restore the name of such elector to the list from which it was removed'.
Although denominated an appeal in the title of this section, the proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Garcia, 11805
...141 Conn. 731, 735, 109 A.2d 873 [1954]. A person's [37 Conn.App. 628] intention is to be inferred from his conduct. Kiernan v. Borst, 144 Conn. 1, 6, 126 A.2d 569 [1956]." State v. Bzdyra, [supra, 165 Conn. at 403, 334 A.2d 917].' State v. Sober, 166 Conn. 81, 92-93, 347 A.2d 61 (1974). Wh......
-
State v. Patterson
...; State v. Mazzadra, 141 Conn. 731, 735, 109 A.2d 873 [1954]. A person's intention is to be inferred from his conduct. Kiernan v. Borst, 144 Conn. 1, 6, 126 A.2d 569 [1956]." State v. Bzdyra, [supra].' State v. Sober, 166 Conn. 81, 92-93, 347 A.2d 61 (1974)." State v. Morrill, supra, 193 Co......
-
State v. Ruiz
...86 A.2d 322. A person's intention may be inferred from his conduct; State v. Pallanck, 146 Conn. 527, 531, 152 A.2d 633; Kiernan v. Borst, 144 Conn. 1, 6, 126 A.2d 569; and every person is conclusively presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his acts. Peerless Mfg. Co. ......
-
State v. Vars
...Mazzadra, 141 Conn. 731, 735, 109 A.2d 873. 'A person's intention in any regard is to be inferred from his conduct'; Kiernan v. Borst, 144 Conn. 1, 6, 126 A.2d 569, 571; and ordinarily can be proven only by circumstantial evidence. State v. Sul, 146 Conn. 76, 87, 147 A.2d From the evidence,......