DocketNumber: File No. 177
Citation Numbers: 370 A.2d 1318, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 758
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 10/8/1976
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant has appealed from a judgment in the plaintiff's favor for services rendered in training the defendant's colt. The appeal raises five issues: two attack the complaint; a third, the court's validation of the plaintiff's attachment; a fourth, the court's finding in the plaintiff's favor on the defendant's counterclaim; and a fifth, the court's refusal to correct a portion of the transcript.
The complaint contained the common counts together with a bill of particulars. The bill of particulars in effect struck out of the common counts all of the paragraphs not applicable. Douglass v. Brandt,
The defendant attacks the trial court's action in denying his motion to quash the attachment of his colt and in granting the plaintiff's motion for a prejudgment remedy. That issue is moot because following the trial court's action a statutory bond was substituted for the attachment and the attachment was discharged. Reynolds v. Vroom,
The fourth count of the defendant's counterclaim alleges that the plaintiff returned to the defendant a bailed mare in a debilitated condition and that that condition was caused by the plaintiff's neglect. The court found that the mare was returned in an unhealthy condition. The court also found that the mare's condition at the time of the bailment was worse than when she was returned. There is support for both findings in the evidence. Although the return of bailed property in a damaged condition raises a presumption that it was attributable to the negligence of the bailee; Malone v. Santora,
The defendant's claim that the transcript is inaccurate in certain respects avails him nothing. Not only did the trial court find that the disputed transcript was substantially correct, but the defendant *Page 760
does not show how he was prejudiced by the claimed errors or omissions. The record does not show that the defendant filed a motion for a continuance or for a mistrial. It is axiomatic that for error to be reversible, it must be shown not only that there was error but also that the error was harmful. State v. Tropiano,
The remaining assignments of error have not been pursued in the brief and are, therefore, considered abandoned. State v. Hall,
There is no error.
PARSKEY, D. SHEA, and SPONZO, Js., participated in this decision.
Leake & Nelson Co. v. W. J. Megin, Inc. , 142 Conn. 99 ( 1955 )
State v. Tropiano , 158 Conn. 412 ( 1969 )
Malone v. Santora , 135 Conn. 286 ( 1949 )
Patchen v. Delohery Hat Co. , 82 Conn. 592 ( 1909 )
Douglass v. Brandt , 99 Conn. 161 ( 1923 )
Reynolds v. Vroom , 130 Conn. 512 ( 1944 )