Connecticut Reports; Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut Volume 6

Connecticut Reports; Proceedings in the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut Volume 6

List price: US$12.82

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1849 edition. Excerpt: ... be understood. The second count avers grammatically, that the defendants sold; and the time of the transaction is specified in a previous clause of the same sentence, ta. the 2on1 of January, 1824. 'Ir it be not averred in this count who kept the store, this is not necessary. If such an averment had been inserted, it might be rejected as surplusage. The keeping of a store need not be proved. 2. That the action was sustainable, in the name of Isaac Spencer, in his ofiicial capacity. The statute on which the actionis founded, subjects the offender to a penalty of "fifty dollars, one half to him who shall give information, and the other half to the use of this state." Stat. 437. s. 4. It is an established rule, that where a statute inflicts a penalty, and gives part to the state, and part to a common informer, if no qui tam suit has been commenced, the whole may be recovered for the use of the state. 1 S'wi_ft's Dig. 586. Another statute has provided, that "it shall be the duty of the treasurer to receive the fines and forfeitures belonging to the state." Stat. 462. tit. 103, s. 6. The case, then, stands on the same ground as though the statute had given the penalty to the state, and had directed the treasurer to receive it. Could there be any doubt, in that case, of the treasurer's capacity to sue? The attorney is the mere agent of the treasurer for the purpose of collection. A civil suit for a penalty in the name of the state, has never been brought. ' 3. That the offence charged was a joint offence. The statute subjects the person or persons who sold, to the penalty. We have then, only to enquire, in this case, who sold? The answer is, neither of the defendants severally, but both...show more

Product details

  • Paperback | 256 pages
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 463g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236943589
  • 9781236943583