Canfield v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action qui tam, upon a statute with regard to nuisances upon highways, to recover a penalty given by the statute, one half to the prosecutor and one half to the toAvn;- brought before a justice of the peace, and appealed by the plaintiff, from the judgment of the justice in faA'or of the defendant, to the Court of Common Picas of New Haven County.
Read the full summary
Action qui tam, upon a statute with regard to nuisances upon highways, to recover a penalty given by the statute, one half to the prosecutor and one half to the toAvn;- brought before a justice of the peace, and appealed by the plaintiff, from the judgment of the justice in faA'or of the defendant, to the Court of Common Picas of New Haven County. In that court the defendant pleaded in abatement that the proceeding was a criminal one and could not be appealed by the plaintiff. The court (Robinson, J.,') sustained the plea and dismissed the case, and the plaintiff brought the record before…
1Opinion of the CourtPardee, J.
The statute provides that “ if any person shall place, or suffer to remain, anything in any highway, or dig up the ground therein, by which the passage of travelers shall be obstructed or endangered or the highway encumbered, the same shall be deemed a common nuisance, and he shall forfeit not less than five, nor more than fifty dollars, half to him who shall prosecute to effect and half to the town where the offence is committed ; and the court before which the conviction is had shall order the defendant to remove such nuisance within thirty days, and on his failure to do so it shall be…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bartlett v. EvartsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831