State v. Gorham
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an information against Samuel Gorham, presented by the state’s attorney, to the superior court in Litch-field county, stating, “ That said Gorham, on the 10th of April, 1835, at an electors’ meeting, duly holden at New-Milford, for the purpose of choosing representatives to represent that town in the then next General Assembly of this state, and the officers of this state which by law might have been chosen at said meeting, did, then and there, at said meeting, at…
Read the full summary
This was an information against Samuel Gorham, presented by the state’s attorney, to the superior court in Litch-field county, stating, “ That said Gorham, on the 10th of April, 1835, at an electors’ meeting, duly holden at New-Milford, for the purpose of choosing representatives to represent that town in the then next General Assembly of this state, and the officers of this state which by law might have been chosen at said meeting, did, then and there, at said meeting, at one and the same balloting for the first representative of said town, put in more than one vote, viz. two votes, for said…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court
decided, on the authority of Crandall v. The State, 10 Conn. Rep. 339. 366. that the information was within the original jurisdiction of the superior court, and sufficient ; and therefore, overruled the motion in arrest.
Motion in arrest overruled.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Crandall v. StateSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
3Cited by10 opinions
- Clegg v. BishopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. TuckerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Clover v. UrbanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
- Millett v. PearsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Osborn v. Zoning Board of Appeals of StamfordConnecticut Superior Court · 1943
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.