Bartlett v. Evarts
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR: This was an action qui tam, brought originally by Evarts against Bartlett, before a justice of the peace, for a penalty given in the 1st section of the act concerning Nuisances, for obstructing a highway.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR: This was an action qui tam, brought originally by Evarts against Bartlett, before a justice of the peace, for a penalty given in the 1st section of the act concerning Nuisances, for obstructing a highway. The declaration stated: “That the defendant, on the 10th of November, 1829, and at divers other times before and since, in the town of Guilford, in and upon a certain common highway, leading from New-Haven to New London, through said town of Guilford, divers great pieces of timber, a large quantity, viz. fifty loads, of wood, and divers loads of rubbish, put and placed; and set up…
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
The ground of objection to the testimony in question, in the court below, is so entirely untenable, that the counsel for the defendant have, very properly, abandoned it. But they claim now, that the testimony was inadmissible for other reasons than those assigned in the bill of exceptions. They claim, that the testimony was irrelevant, as not tending to prove the defendant guilty of the charge alleged: that it only conduced to prove, that the building occupied by him, or some of its appurtenances, was in the highway, but not that the defendant placed it there; and although other evidence…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scovell v. KingsleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
3Cited by2 opinions
- Burrows v. GallupSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1865
- Canfield v. MitchellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875