Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Conn. 117

Hyde v. Hyde

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided July 15, 1821

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1821-07-15

IN ERROR. This was a qui tam complaint in the following words: “To John Francis, Esq. a justice of the peace for the county of Windham, comes David Hyde of Canterbury in said county, and complains, in the name and behalf of the state of Connecticut, as well as in his own name, and informs, that at said Canterbury, on the 8th day of July, 1820, Comfort S. Hyde and Alfred Hyde, of said Canterbury, did, with force and arms, an assault make on the body of the complainant, and…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1965

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1821-07-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hosmer, Ch. J.

¶1The eighth section of the first article of the constitution of this state, is applicable to search-warrants only, and is not relevant to this case; but if it were, the process issued on the oath of the proper person.

¶2If the writ was “returnable for trial” to the county court, a duty of thirty-four cents was payable upon it; and that it was thus returnable, is too clear to be disputed, unless it be absurdly said, that it was returnable for trial no where. It *119clearly was not “returnable for trial” before a justice. It cannot be pretended, that a justice had jurisdiction to try an action demanding five hundred dollars damages; and most obviously his interference was necessary for no other purpose than to forward the process to the county court. Uniform usage has given a construction to the law; and if the statute required any duty, of which there is no question, a duty of thirty-four cents is payable.

The other Judges were of the same opinion.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/4/conn/117 · .json · Public domain