Board of Water Com'rs of New London v. Robbins & Potter

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

Board of Water Com'rs of New London v. Robbins & Potter

125 F. 656, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5119

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut

DecidedNovember 2, 1903

DocketNo. 534

StatusPublished

This text of 125 F. 656 (Board of Water Com'rs of New London v. Robbins & Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Board of Water Com'rs of New London v. Robbins & Potter, 125 F. 656, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5119 (circtdct 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PLATT, District Judge.

It is conceded by counsel for the petitioner that they are not worried lest justice might escape them in the state court on account of prejudice or local influence, if their case shall be submitted to any of the local judges having jurisdiction. Indeed, it is not reasonable that in such an event they should worry, since all the judges of the superior court are of the highest character, and, traveling on circuit, as they do, will be very likely to reside in •a portion of the state farther from the scene of action than the federal judge. It is the fear of the effect of local prejudice and influence upon the jury which is the exciting cause of the petition. In such case it would seem that Rev. St. § 550, might be invoked by the petitioner. Under that section a judge holding the superior court in New London county may, if in his opinion the cause of justice requires it, order the cause, as soon as it has been put to the jury, to be transferred to the superior court in any other county.

In the circumstances, the moving party will perhaps thank me for expressing no decided opinion upon the controverted issue which is before me. It would seem clear that the state judge, sitting upon the very ground where the controversy exists, could determine the matter very much more satisfactorily than I can, at a distance, and with somewhat meager affidavits to guide me.

The petition is 'denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PLATT, District Judge.

It is conceded by counsel for the petitioner that they are not worried lest justice might escape them in the state court on account of prejudice or local influence, if their case shall be submitted to any of the local judges having jurisdiction. Indeed, it is not reasonable that in such an event they should worry, since all the judges of the superior court are of the highest character, and, traveling on circuit, as they do, will be very likely to reside in •a portion of the state farther from the scene of action than the federal judge. It is the fear of the effect of local prejudice and influence upon the jury which is the exciting cause of the petition. In such case it would seem that Rev. St. § 550, might be invoked by the petitioner. Under that section a judge holding the superior court in New London county may, if in his opinion the cause of justice requires it, order the cause, as soon as it has been put to the jury, to be transferred to the superior court in any other county.

In the circumstances, the moving party will perhaps thank me for expressing no decided opinion upon the controverted issue which is before me. It would seem clear that the state judge, sitting upon the very ground where the controversy exists, could determine the matter very much more satisfactorily than I can, at a distance, and with somewhat meager affidavits to guide me.

The petition is 'denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 F. 656, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 5119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-water-comrs-of-new-london-v-robbins-potter-circtdct-1903.