TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Gorham

The State of Connecticut against Gorham

State v. Gorham, 11 Conn. 233 (1836)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Connecticut · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1836
Citations
11 Conn. 233
Headnotes
An information for putting in more votes than one, at an electors’ meeting, at the same balloting, is within the original jurisdiction of the superior court.
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 first representative, which votes were then and there received, by the presiding officer of said meeting.” To this information the defendant pleaded Not guilty, and was tried on this issue. The jury found him guilty. He then moved in arrest of judgment for the insufficiency of the information, claiming that the superior court had not jurisdiction of the cause. The question arising on such motion, was reserved for the advice of this court. O. S. Seymour, in support of the motion, and L. Church, state’s attorney, contra, submitted the case without argument.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11927: 11928: 11939: 21943: 11962: 11979: 12001: 119192026peak 1939 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker423 A.2d 141 (Conn. 1979)
  2. Clegg v. Bishop136 A. 102 (Conn. 1927)
  3. Clover v. Urban142 A. 389 (Conn. 1928)
  4. Millett v. Pearson173 N.W. 411 (Minn. 1919)
  5. Grayer v. State353 S.W.2d 148 (Ark. 1962)
  6. Osborn v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Stamford11 Conn. Super. Ct. 489 (1943)

Most recent

  1. Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, No. Fa00-0339869s (Apr. 9, 2001)2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 5055 (2001)
  2. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. Tucker423 A.2d 141 (Conn. 1979)
  3. Grayer v. State353 S.W.2d 148 (Ark. 1962)
  4. Osborn v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Stamford11 Conn. Super. Ct. 489 (1943)
  5. Clucas v. McGrath7 Conn. Super. Ct. 145 (1939)
  6. Clucas v. McGrath7 Conn. Supp. 145 (1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Crandall v. State, 10 Conn. 339 (1834) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list