State v. Maioffes
| Decision Date | 06 March 1934 |
| Citation | 171 A. 625,118 Conn. 199 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. MAIOFFES. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New London County; Charles B Waller, Judge.
Barnett Maioffes was convicted under an information charging him with the crime of keeping firecrackers for sale contrary to an ordinance, after a trial to the court, and he appeals.
Error and case remanded, with direction to dismiss the information.
Where separate laws relating to same subject-matter can be reconciled, both must be given effect concurrently.
Arthur F. Libby, of Norwich, for appellant.
Edwin W. Higgins, Pros. Atty., of Norwich, for the State.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.
The defendant was found guilty of violating an ordinance of the borough of Colchester forbidding the sale of firecrackers. In the original charter of the borough, granted in 1824, the warden and burgesses were given power, by section 10, to enact by-laws concerning certain matters, and the section concluded as follows: " Provided, that no by-laws shall be repugnant to the laws of the State, and that all by-laws made by the warden and burgesses, shall be approved by the borough in legal meeting assembled, and after being so approved shall be published at least three weeks successively in some public newspaper published in New London in said county, before the same shall be of any validity; and all by-laws within eight months after they are made and published as aforesaid may be repealed by the Superior Court holden in said county of New London, if said court on a hearing shall adjudge them to be unreasonable and unjust." 1 Special Laws, p. 179. In 1883 the charter was amended in several respects, and in that amendment, one section, 7, dealt with by-laws which might be made by the warden and burgesses. This section concluded with the following provision: " And all by-laws made by the warden and burgesses shall, before going into effect, be posted upon a public signpost in said borough." The amendment ended with a section as follows: " This resolution is made a part of the charter of the borough of Colchester, and all acts and resolutions inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." 9 Special Laws, p. 777.
The by-law under which the defendant was found guilty was within the scope of the powers given the warden and burgesses in the law of 1883 and was duly posted upon the signpost within the town, but it was never " approved by the borough in a legal meeting assembled" or published in any newspaper. The question presented by this appeal in this: Since the enactment of the law of 1883 is it sufficient to the validity of a by-law adopted by the warden and burgesses that it be posted upon a public signpost, or is the provision in the original charter requiring approval at a borough meeting and publication still in effect?
A comparison of section 7 of the 1883 law with section 10 of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of East Haven v. City of New Haven
...Reiley v. Chatfield, 71 Conn. 104, 112, 40 A. 922; Fair Haven & W.R. Co. v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 442, 446, 53 A. 960; State v. Maioffes, 118 Conn. 199, 201, 171 A. 625.' Hutchison v. City of Hartford, 129 Conn. 329, 332, 27 A.2d 803; McAdams v. Barbieri, 143 Conn. 405, 413, 123 A.2d 'Even wh......
-
Arsenal School Dist. v. Consolidated Town and City of Hartford
... ... recommended the levy of a tax the proceeds of which, when so ... distributed among the districts, together with the proceeds ... of the state enumeration grant, the state corporation stock ... tax, and the town deposit fund to which each of the districts ... was entitled, would give to ... consolidation complete in itself, in substitution for that ... contained in the General Statutes? State v ... Maioffes, 118 Conn. 199, 201, 171 A. 625. I think it ... was. Had it been intended merely to adapt the plan in the ... General Statutes to Hartford, there ... ...
-
State ex rel. Moran v. Washburn, 21967
...on the matter, whether they are general or special. Hutchison v. City of Hartford, 129 Conn. 329, 332, 27 A.2d 803; State v. Maioffes, 118 Conn. 199, 201, 171 A. 625; Walsh v. City of Bridgeport, 88 Conn. 528, 534, 91 A. 969. Especially is this true where the later statute is necessarily re......
-
Hutchison v. City of Hartford
...Reiley v. Chatfield, 71 Conn. 104, 112, 40 A. 922; Fair Haven & W. R. Co. v. New Haven, 75 Conn. 442, 446, 53 A. 960; State v. Maioffes, 118 Conn. 199, 201, 171 A. 625. Checking the 1911 special law against the 1921 law, we reach this result: The first part of the 1921 law is word for word ......