Darling v. Hubbell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
The original action was debt on a recognizance, brought by Joseph Darling, Esq. treasurer of the county of New-Haven, against Charlotte Hubbell, as principal, and Owen Reynolds, as surety. The recognizance was taken under the following circumstances.
Read the full summary
The original action was debt on a recognizance, brought by Joseph Darling, Esq. treasurer of the county of New-Haven, against Charlotte Hubbell, as principal, and Owen Reynolds, as surety. The recognizance was taken under the following circumstances. Silas Mix, Esq., a grand-juror of the town of New-Haven, complained to a justice of the peace, that said Charlotte Hubbell, on certain days mentioned in the complaint, kept and maintained a house reputed to be a house of bawdry and ill fame. A warrant having issued, she brought before Justice Hunt, who, “ after enquiring into the facts and…
1Opinion of the Court
Wií.í.íams, J.
The defendants claim, that the bond was not properly taken.
By statute, where the record is returnable to the county court, bonds are to be taken to the treasurer of the county; where it is returnable to the superior court, the bonds must be taken to the treasurer of the state. Stat. vol. 2. p. 278. sect. 124.
The magistrate, in this case, supposing that this case was to be transmitted to the county court, has taken this bond to the county treasurer ; and his judgment is, as well as the condition of the bond, that the accused abide the order of that court. If this was a case over…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- People v. Van EpsNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Waldo v. SpencerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1821
- Billings v. AverySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
3Cited by3 opinions
- Ennis v. Pullman Palace Car Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Amsden v. AtwoodSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Gage v. DudleySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1886