State v. Hogan
| Decision Date | 05 June 1896 |
| Citation | 35 A. 508,67 Conn. 581 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. HOGAN. |
Appeal from criminal court of common pleas, New Haven county; Hotchkiss, Judge.
Patrick Hogan was convicted of keeping open his saloon on Sunday, and appeals. Affirmed.
Defendant challenged the array of jurors on the ground that only four of the number were drawn for that particular term of court, the remainder having been retained from a former term under the provisions of chapter 189, Pub. Acts 1895, while by chapter 219 of said acts the drawing of a jury for each jury term of the superior, district, and common pleas courts is provided for. The challenge was overruled. On the trial the state was permitted to show that one Baker, who was a bartender, and in defendant's saloon when the officers entered it on Sunday, had departed the state, and that a subpoena had been issued for him, which could not be served.
James P. Pigott and Denis T. Walsh, for appellant.
George M. Gunn, Pros. Atty., for the State.
ANDREWS, C. J. A challenge to the array of jurors is an objection to the whole panel of jurors at once, and, in order to be available, it must be for a cause that affects all the jurors alike. 3 Bl. Comm. 359; 2 Tidd, Prac. 779. The challenge here was bad on its face, in that it was for a reason which, by its own terms, did not attach to four of the jurors whom it prayed to have rejected. It was necessarily overruled.
But, passing this, the challenge was properly denied for the other reason given. The argument by the defendant is that the act (chapter 189 of the Public Acts of 1895) was repealed by the fifth section of the general jury law passed the same year. That act (chapter 189) was a special act, having reference only to the court of common pleas in New Haven county. The general jury act (chapter 219 of the Public Acts of 1895) was a. general act. The rule is that a special statute is not ordinarily repealed by a later general one. City of Hartford v. Hartford Theological Seminary, 66 Conn. 475, 34 Atl. 483.
The testimony as to the conduct of the defendant's wife, and what she said to the officers, was admissible, and very significant, as tending to show that the saloon was being kept open at that time.
The state's attorney was in a sense bound to produce the barkeeper, Baker, as a witness, or to explain his absence; otherwise, he would have been open to the charge of a neglect of duty by the holding back of the very witness who was in the best...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cobbs
...whole panel of jurors at once, and in order to be available it must be for a cause that affects all the jurors alike.' State v. Hogan, 67 Conn. 581, 583, 35 A. 508, 509, State v. Smith, supra; State v. Rocco, 109 Conn. 571, 572, 145 A. 47; State v. Luria, 100 Conn. 207, 209, 123 A.2d 378; 4......
-
State v. Townsend
...the whole panel of jurors at once, and in order to be available it must be for a cause that affects all the jurors alike.' State v. Hogan, 67 Conn. 581, 583, 35 A. 508. See also State v. Cobbs, 164 Conn. 402, 413, 324 A.2d 234; State v. Luria, 100 Conn. 207, 209, 123 A. 378; 47 Am.Jur.2d, J......
-
State v. Santangelo
...(2d Cir.1972), cert. denied sub nom. Savard v. Perini Corporation, 412 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 2778, 37 L.Ed.2d 404 (1973); State v. Hogan, 67 Conn. 581, 584, 35 A. 508 (1896); B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence § 65(a). Lost or destroyed evidence may, in some instances, evoke sanctions. ......
-
State v. Hart
...the whole panel of jurors at once, and in order to be available it must be for a cause that affects all the jurors alike.' State v. Hogan, 67 Conn. 581, 583, 35 A. 508.' State v. Townsend, Conn., 356 A.2d 125. A purposeful or deliberate denial to blacks, on account of race, of the right to ......