The State of Connecticut against Gorham

The State of Connecticut against Gorham. Litchfield, June, 1836. 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. 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. [MAJORITY — 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.