7 Conn. 428 | Conn. | 1829
The question raised upon the record, and now submitted for decision, is, whether the superior court has jurisdiction of the offence charged in the information. In the case of The State v. Knapp, 6 Conn. Rep. 415. it was decided, that this is not a high crime and misdemeanour, cognizable by the superior court. If then that court has jurisdiction of the case before us, it must be by virtue of the statute of 1828. That statute enacts: “ That the superior court shall have ju- “ risdiction of all offences at common law, of what kind and “ degree soever, for which the punishment is not prescribed by
Again : the statute of 1828 provides, “ That in all cases “ where no punishment is, by statute, fixed for any such com- “ mon law offence, the court, before whom the conviction shall “ be had, may punish the offence, by fine not exceeding five “ hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, “ or both, at the discretion of such court.” From this provision it is, I think, very apparent, that when any punishment is fixed, by statute, for a common law offence, none other than the statute punishment can be inflicted. In the case before us, it is very clear, that the superior court cannot inflict the punishment prescribed by the statute; and as no other can be inflicted, the offence charged in the information is not punishable by that court. This is conclusive on the question of its jurisdiction. I would, therefore, advise, that the superior court adjudge the motion to quash sufficient; and that the cause be dismissed.
Motion to quash sufficient.