State v. Costello
| Decision Date | 29 February 1892 |
| Citation | 61 Conn. 497,23 A. 868 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. COSTELLO. |
Appeal from district court of Waterbury; Bradstreet, Judge.
One Costello was convicted of a crime, and appeals. The state interposes to the appeal a plea in abatement. Plea dismissed.
W. Cotterin, for appellant.
R. A. Lowe, for the State.
The appellant, having been prosecuted for a crime in the court below, and found guilty, brought his appeal to this court under the statute. To that appeal the state has interposed a plea in abatement, founded on the admitted fact that, when the appeal was taken and allowed, no bond or recognizance for costs was given by the defendant, other than that of one of the attorneys at law who defended him in the criminal action. The questions now to lie considered are those arising upon this plea in abatement. The state claims that such a bond, being indirect contravention of the statute, is void, or, at least, voidable, and hence that the appeal was not properly taken. In answer to this, the defendant claims— First, that the bond is not in contravention of the statute; and, second, that, if so, another bond was given by order of the judge who tried the case, within a time limited by him, under the power given him for such purpose by the statute relating to appeals to this court. The state denies that the trial judge had the power to extend the time for giving bond under the facts and circumstances disclosed by the record. Whether the judge had the power to extend the time for filing a bond, under the facts as they appear of record, is a question of some considerable importance in point of practice; but as it was not argued before us at any length, and the decision of it is unnecessary in the present case, in view of the conclusion reached upon the other point, we purposely leave it undecided, and pass it without further comment.
The only question we propose to consider here is whether the bond given at the time of the appeal to this court is a valid bond, for, if it is, the state concedes that the appeal was properly taken and allowed. The statute in question reads as follows: "No attorney at law shall be permitted to become recognized or give any bond in any criminal action or proceeding in which he shall be interested as an attorney." Gen. St. § 1614. The state claims that this act makes the bond here in question void or voidable, and hence that the appeal should abate. This claim is, of course, based upon the assumption that such bond was given in a criminal action or proceeding, within the meaning of the statute. If the assumption is true, the claim may perhaps well stand; but, if not, then the claim is without support. We think the assumption is not true.
In the first place, it must be admitted that the act in question is one clearly in derogation of a common private right. According to the claim of the state, it disables a certain class of persons of full age, of sound mind, and in all respects legally capable of entering into a contract, from making a certain class of contracts. Such statutes are to he construed strictly, and in favor of the right. They are not to be construed as taking away such a right in a given case, unless the intention to do so is manifest. Smith v. Spooner, 3 Pick. 229; Suth. St. Const, par. 400. In the next place, we need hardly invoke the aid of this rule of construction in this case, for the statute itself, in express terms, limits the class of obligations which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of J.S.
...A "criminal proceeding" has been defined as one instituted and prosecuted by the state for the punishment of crime (State v. Cossello, 61 Conn. 497, 500, 23 A. 868 (1892)), as an action instituted and prosecuted by the state or sovereign proven in its own name against a person who is accuse......
-
State v. Muolo
... ... Legislature an intent by the adoption of that phraseology to ... make any essential change in the scope of writs of error ... Indeed, as late as 1892, we pointed out that an accused in a ... criminal proceeding might in a proper case bring a writ of ... error to this court. State v. Costello, 61 Conn ... 497, 500, 23 A. 868; see State v. Caplan, 85 Conn ... 618, 84 A. 980. Our conclusion is [118 Conn. 385] that the ... writ of error before us was properly brought ... The ... motion to erase is denied ... In this ... opinion the other ... ...
-
Hart v. Bd. of Examiners of Embalmers
...147, 128 Am.St.Rep. 439) and thus derogates from the common law and should be strictly construed in favor of the right. State v. Costello, 61 Conn. 497, 499, 23 A. 868. It follows that the 1941 act was not retrospective in operation and that the rights of the parties are governed by the law......
-
Langbein v. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals Of Town Of Milford
...construed in favor of such owner.’ In re W. P. Rose Builders' Supply Co., 202 N.C. 496, 500, 163 S.E. 462, 464; see State v. Costello, 61 Conn. 497, 499, 23 A. 868; Pratt v. Borough of Litchfield, 62 Conn. 112, 118, 25 A. 461; Hart v. Board of Examiners of Embalmers, 129 Conn. 128, 132, 26 ......