Curtis v. Hurlburt
Supreme Court of Connecticut
in error. THIS was an action qui tam against Ilurlburt, brought in the county court, for Fairfield county, on the statute, tit. Fisheries, c. 1. s. 6. to recover the penalty of 67 dollars, for using a bush-seine in Ousatonniek river. The declaration was in the words of that against Eastman,(a) with the change only of the defendant’s name.
Read the full summary
in error. THIS was an action qui tam against Ilurlburt, brought in the county court, for Fairfield county, on the statute, tit. Fisheries, c. 1. s. 6. to recover the penalty of 67 dollars, for using a bush-seine in Ousatonniek river. The declaration was in the words of that against Eastman,(a) with the change only of the defendant’s name. The writ was dated on the Kith, and served on the 16th of May, 1814. The defendant pleaded in bar an action for the penalty here demanded, and a recovery, by the present plaintiff, against Eastman, reciting the record, and averring that the writ in that…
1Opinion of the Court
Swift, Ch. J.
All offences at the common law are several — that is, though several join in the commission, of the act, and that act is single, yet each is guilty severally, and is liable to a. separate punishment. If two should jointly take, and, with felonious intent, carry away, the goods of another, each would be guilty of the crime of theft, and might *313be prosecuted jointly, or separately. When a statute creates an offence, it may be joint or several, according to the language made use of. The statute on which tiie present question arises, is, that “ no person shall use any bush-seine in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dole v. WeeksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Hill v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
3Cited by11 opinions
- Inhabitants of Goshen v. Inhabitants of StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Heath v. WhiteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
- Winston v. EwingSupreme Court of Alabama · 1840
- United Society v. President of Eagle Bank of New-HavenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1829
- McMahon v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.