Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Conn. 38

Newell v. State

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided November 15, 1816

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1816-11-15

IN ERROR. THIS was an information against Newell, for striking and emitting bills, to be used as a medium of trade, contrary to the statute. The offence was alleged to have been committed in September, 1814. The information was exhibited to a justice of the peace, and a warrant issued, in August, 1815. In May, 1816, the defendant was arrested, examined, and a recognizance taken for his appearance at the jjext superior court.

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Exhibit”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1816-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1998

4 state decisions

201816182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Swirr, Ch. J.

¶1The question is, what is intended by exhibiting a complaint, or information, in criminal cases. The presentment of the complaint, signed by some proper informing officer, to a court or public officer, who has authority to receive the same, and to issue a warrant te apprehend the offender, and bring him to trial, must be a compliance with the law. In this case, a justice of the peace had power to cause the offender to be apprehended; and though be had not final cognizance of the offence, he had pow er to take proper measures to cause him to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction to try him. To exhibit the information to such public officer, is a strict and literal compliance with the statute; and such has been the immemorial and uniform usage in the state. And unless such power is given to single ministers of justice, a very convenient opportunity would often be afforded to offenders, to escape from justice.

¶2I think there is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other Judges severally concurred.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/2/conn/38 · .json · Public domain