State v. May

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. May

64 A. 833, 79 Conn. 315, 1906 Conn. LEXIS 53

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedOctober 30, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 64 A. 833 (State v. May) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. May, 64 A. 833, 79 Conn. 315, 1906 Conn. LEXIS 53 (Colo. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, J.

But one reason of appeal is assigned, namely, that the court erred in ruling on the preliminary examination cf.the child that she understood the nature of an oath and that she was competent to testify as a witness. The finding shows that this reason is without foundation. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177; Wheeler v. United States, 159 U. S. 523, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93.

On the argument before us another point was pressed, namely, that it appears from the transcript of the stenog *317 rapher’s notes that'the court did not pass upon the competency of the child to be a witness before admitting her to testify, but only ruled that it would allow the oath to be administered to her and leave the matter to be disposed of in its charge to the jury.

Although the transcript and the charge have not been printed for use on this appeal, they became, by the action of the trial court, part of the record of the cause in this court, and could be referred to as such for any proper purpose. See Rules of Court, p. 99, §§ 20-22. Without considering whether there is anything in them inconsistent with the finding, it is enough to say that thejr cannot be of any benefit to the appellant, since the claim of error in question was not made a reason of appeal; contradicts the only reason of appeal which is stated; and no leave has been sought to introduce it by an amendment of the appeal. General Statutes, §§ 798,802; Rules of Court, p. 103, § 39.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

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

Baldwin, J.

But one reason of appeal is assigned, namely, that the court erred in ruling on the preliminary examination cf.the child that she understood the nature of an oath and that she was competent to testify as a witness. The finding shows that this reason is without foundation. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177; Wheeler v. United States, 159 U. S. 523, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93.

On the argument before us another point was pressed, namely, that it appears from the transcript of the stenog *317 rapher’s notes that'the court did not pass upon the competency of the child to be a witness before admitting her to testify, but only ruled that it would allow the oath to be administered to her and leave the matter to be disposed of in its charge to the jury.

Although the transcript and the charge have not been printed for use on this appeal, they became, by the action of the trial court, part of the record of the cause in this court, and could be referred to as such for any proper purpose. See Rules of Court, p. 99, §§ 20-22. Without considering whether there is anything in them inconsistent with the finding, it is enough to say that thejr cannot be of any benefit to the appellant, since the claim of error in question was not made a reason of appeal; contradicts the only reason of appeal which is stated; and no leave has been sought to introduce it by an amendment of the appeal. General Statutes, §§ 798,802; Rules of Court, p. 103, § 39.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A. 833, 79 Conn. 315, 1906 Conn. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-may-conn-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack