State v. Dibble
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | CARPENTER, J. |
| Citation | 22 A. 155,59 Conn. 168 |
| Parties | STATE v. DIBBLE. |
| Decision Date | 12 June 1890 |
59 Conn. 168
STATE
v.
DIBBLE.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
June 12, 1890.
Case reserved from court of common pleas, New Haven county.
Proceeding against Charles F. Dibble for neglect to support his wife and child. Defendant appealed from a judgment of the city court to the court of common
pleas, which reserved the case for advice on defendant's motion.
J. W. Ailing and J. P. Pigott, for appellant.
E. P. Arvine and H. L. Hotchkiss, for the State.
CARPENTER, J. This is a prosecution to compel the defendant to support his wife and child. The complaint was addressed to the city court of New Haven. The defendant was brought before the court, pleaded not guilty, and upon a hearing was found guilty, and judgment was rendered against him. He appealed to the criminal side of the court of common pleas. In the appellate court the defendant's counsel moved to erase the case from the docket, and also to quash the complaint. On these motions several questions are raised. One questions the validity of the proceeding; another denies the jurisdiction of the appellate court, for the reason that there was some delay in entering the copies in the docket of that court; and others still raise some technical objections to the validity of the judgment of the city court. Then there is a stipulation by counsel as to certain facts. At this stage of the case it is reserved for the advice of this court.
1. The objection to the validity of the process cannot be sustained. The objection, if it could be made at all, should have been taken by a plea in abatement in the city court. It related, not to the jurisdiction of the court over the parties or the subject-matter, but to the manner of bringing the defendant before the court. If there was anything irregular or objectionable in that, it was waived by pleading to the merits. In the next place, the objection itself is not well taken. The charter provides, in terms, that the "process shall be deemed to be issued by the court when issued and signed by the judge or assistant judge or clerk thereof, or the city attorney." The defendant insists that because the city attorney signed the complaint he could not legally sign the warrant. The charter makes no such exception, and we are unable to see sufficient grounds on which we can make it. The language of the charter makes the signature of the city attorney the act of the city court. His signature to the complaint was the act of the city...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Furmage, No. 726
...N.E.2d 163, it was held that the issuance of a warrant (by a deputy clerk of a municipal court) was a ministerial act. In State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155, it was held that the issuance of a warrant by the city attorney was a ministerial In State v. McGowan, supra, Higgins, J., for ......
-
Hollibaugh and Bunten v. Hehn
...are the following: Commonwealth v. Conlin, 184 Mass. 195, 68 N.E. 207; Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631; State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155; State v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118; Dow's case, 18 Pa. St. 37. [13 Wyo. 275] (See also State v. Sureties of Krohne, 4 Wyo. 347, 34 P. 3; ......
-
State v. Van Brocklin,
...5 R. C. L. 627; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 493, 495;In re Siebert, 61 Kan. 112, 58 P. 971; Re Durant, 60 Vt. 176, 12 A. 650;State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155. These cases all hold that the Legislature may authorize the clerk of the court to issue criminal warrants. In State v. Dibble, 59 Co......
-
State v. Costello, No. CR
...106, 197 A.2d 339; see Practice Book §§ 499, 529, 530. The objection to the validity of the process cannot be sustained. State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 169, 22 A. In his brief, the defendant departs from or fails to pursue the two averments on which the motion to quash was based: (1) The af......
-
State v. Furmage, No. 726
...N.E.2d 163, it was held that the issuance of a warrant (by a deputy clerk of a municipal court) was a ministerial act. In State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155, it was held that the issuance of a warrant by the city attorney was a ministerial In State v. McGowan, supra, Higgins, J., for ......
-
Hollibaugh and Bunten v. Hehn
...are the following: Commonwealth v. Conlin, 184 Mass. 195, 68 N.E. 207; Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 N.E. 631; State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155; State v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118; Dow's case, 18 Pa. St. 37. [13 Wyo. 275] (See also State v. Sureties of Krohne, 4 Wyo. 347, 34 P. 3; ......
-
State v. Van Brocklin,
...5 R. C. L. 627; 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 493, 495;In re Siebert, 61 Kan. 112, 58 P. 971; Re Durant, 60 Vt. 176, 12 A. 650;State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 22 A. 155. These cases all hold that the Legislature may authorize the clerk of the court to issue criminal warrants. In State v. Dibble, 59 Co......
-
State v. Costello, No. CR
...106, 197 A.2d 339; see Practice Book §§ 499, 529, 530. The objection to the validity of the process cannot be sustained. State v. Dibble, 59 Conn. 168, 169, 22 A. In his brief, the defendant departs from or fails to pursue the two averments on which the motion to quash was based: (1) The af......