State v. Bradley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Information for a conspiracy to defraud; filed by tbe prosecuting attorney of tbe city of Hartford in thp police court of the city.
Read the full summary
Information for a conspiracy to defraud; filed by tbe prosecuting attorney of tbe city of Hartford in thp police court of the city. Tbe information contained three counts, tbe second one being as follows:— That Leonard A. Bradley, Charles E. Gager, and Albert E. Olmstead, of said city of Hartford, at and within said city, on the first day of May, 1878, did, among themselves, wickedly and unlawfully conspire, confederate and agree to cheat and defraud Thomas C. Pease of Enfield in said county, out of certain property, to wit: a certain house and lot situated on Wethersfield Avenue, in said…
1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.
The defendants were arraigned on a criminal charge. As the jury were about to be impaneled their counsel challenged the array on the ground that the act of *5461880, providing a different method of selecting jurors, was unconstitutional; at least, that it was inoperative during the year 1880.
The only ground of challenge to the array at common law is partiality, corruption or fraud, or some defect in making the returns. Swift says (Digest, Yol. 2, p. 429) : “ But our mode of selecting jurors is such that there is no room for any partiality or corruption in the returning officers, so that it…
2Cited by14 opinions
- State v. GannonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1902
- Shulman v. ShulmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- State v. DevineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1962
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- McDuffie v. PerkersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.