Citation Numbers: 149 A. 415, 111 Conn. 47
Judges: Wheelbb, Maltbie, Haines, Hinman, Banks
Filed Date: 3/5/1930
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
To entitle an applicant for admission to the bar of this State to take the required examination he must, in addition to other requirements, satisfy the Bar Examining Committee that he is a person of good moral character, that he has filed with the clerk of the Superior Court in the county in which he intends to apply for admission a notice of his intention to apply for examination, and that subsequently, at a meeting of the bar, it was voted to approve such intended application. Practice Book, pp. 237-239, § 4.
In the case of O'Brien's Petition,
The plaintiff's appeal contains some one hundred and seventy assignments of error. Most of them are utterly devoid of merit. Certain interlocutory rulings which are attacked, including the denial of plaintiff's motion for oyer, motion to expunge and motion to strike out certain testimony, were clearly correct and in any event could not have affected the judgment. The unsubstantial nature of many of the assignments is indicated in the fact that various paragraphs of the appeal predicate error upon the alleged failure of the court to file a finding in the face of the finding appearing in the record. A large number of paragraphs of the appeal attack the judgment by merely reciting that the court erred in denying and refusing to grant the various claims and prayers of the plaintiff for relief. The plaintiff upon the trial offered to introduce evidence for the purpose of showing his general fitness, competency and moral qualifications for admission to *Page 51 the bar, which the court excluded upon the ground that such qualifications were not before it for determination and the plaintiff duly excepted. This ruling was correct.O'Brien's Petition, supra. The plaintiff assigned as error the failure of the court to set out in the finding the numerous exceptions taken by the plaintiff and allowed by the court throughout the trial. This the court was not obliged to do since the request for a finding did not set forth the rulings upon the evidence as required by our rule. Practice Book, p. 272, § 133.
The fundamental issue before the trial court was whether the committee of the bar and the bar acted fairly and reasonably or from prejudice and ill-will in their consideration of the plaintiff's application. This issue the court resolved adversely to the plaintiff in its finding that the approval of his application was withheld after a fair investigation of the facts, and that the action of the committee on admission and of the bar was regular, fair and not the result of prejudice or ill-will, nor was it the result of any conspiracy on the part of any members of the bar to prevent the applicant securing the approval of the bar as claimed by him. This finding is supported by the subordinate facts found and must stand unless deprived of such support by a correction of the finding. No motion to correct the finding was made in the court below. In his reasons of appeal the plaintiff asserts that the court erred in refusing to find true and proven each of the one hundred and four paragraphs of his draft-finding, and in finding the facts contained in twenty paragraphs of the finding, and has procured the certification of all the evidence taken upon the trial. These assignments of error are not in the proper form to obtain a correction of the finding in this court, and since the evidence is before us for that purpose only we would ordinarily refuse to consider it. Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. *Page 52
v. Cambell,
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co. v. Cambell , 97 Conn. 251 ( 1922 )
O'brien's Petition , 79 Conn. 46 ( 1906 )
In Re Application of Presnick (Oct. 24, 2002) , 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 14128 ( 2002 )
Vitale v. Crocco , 1 Conn. App. 184 ( 1983 )
Application of Thomas J. Dodd., Jr. , 13 Conn. Super. Ct. 209 ( 1945 )
In Re Application of Dinan , 157 Conn. 67 ( 1968 )
Osterlund v. State , 129 Conn. 591 ( 1943 )
In Re Presnick (Jan 6, 1998) , 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 563 ( 1998 )
In Re Application of Sharkiewicz , 143 Conn. 724 ( 1956 )
In Re Application of Warren , 149 Conn. 266 ( 1962 )
In Re Application of Dodd , 132 Conn. 237 ( 1945 )
In Re Application of Plantamura , 22 Conn. Super. Ct. 213 ( 1960 )