This was an information against Samuel Gorham, presented by the state’s attorney, to the superior court in Litch-field county, stating, “ That said Gorham, on the 10th of April, 1835, at an electors’ meeting, duly holden at New-Milford, for the purpose of choosing representatives to represent that town in the then next General Assembly of this state, and the officers of this state which by law might have been chosen at said meeting, did, then and there, at said meeting, at…
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1836-06-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2001
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1decided, on the authority of Crandall v. The State, 10 Conn. Rep. 339. 366. that the information was within the original jurisdiction of the superior court, and sufficient ; and therefore, overruled the motion in arrest.