State v. Wolfarth
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Complaint by a prosecuting agent appointed under the act of 1874, which provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquors and forbids their sale without a license; brought to the City Court of the city of Norwich, and by appeal of the defendant to the Superior Court for New London County. In this court the defendant demurred to the complaint, but the court (Hitchcock, J.,~) ovenuled the demurrer.
Read the full summary
Complaint by a prosecuting agent appointed under the act of 1874, which provides for the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquors and forbids their sale without a license; brought to the City Court of the city of Norwich, and by appeal of the defendant to the Superior Court for New London County. In this court the defendant demurred to the complaint, but the court (Hitchcock, J.,~) ovenuled the demurrer. The case was then tried to the jury and the defendant found guilty. After the verdict he moved in arrest of judgment for the insufficiency of the complaint, which motion was overruled.…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The questions arising under the demurrer/ and under the motion in arrest, are the same, and relate solely to the sufficiency of the complaint.
The first objection is, that the complaint is insufficient for the reason that it is not alleged that the offenses therein complained of were committed after the appointment of the prosecuting agent.
This objection cannot prevail. The statute of 1874 (Revision of 1875, p. 269, sec. 1,) expressly provides that prosecuting agents “shall have and exercise in any town in said county the powers of grandjurors of said town, or prosecuting officers of any city,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. RyanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897
- Quintard v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1882