Summary
In State v. Boyer, 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 288, 198 A.2d 222 (App.Div. 196 3), the court considered whether a threat made over the telephone constituted a violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1958) § 53-174, the former breach of the peace statute.
Summary of this case from State v. SneadOpinion
File No. 5984
A motion to quash may be used to attack irregularities in service of process where the writ and complaint were not filed for so long after the return day that a timely plea in abatement could not be filed.
Memorandum filed September 17, 1963
Memorandum on motion to quash process. Motion granted.
Morton E. Marvin, of Stamford, for the plaintiff.
Francis J. Moran, of New Haven, specially for defendant St. George Greek Orthodox Church. Pullman, Comley, Bradley Reeves, of Bridgeport, specially for defendant Beth David Synagogue.
Although a plea in abatement normally would be the proper pleading by which to attack irregularities in serving a writ as "facts which otherwise would not be apparent to the Court," as pointed out in Laraia v. Pilgard, 14 Conn. Sup. 431, cited by the plaintiff, the writ and complaint herein were not even filed in court until several weeks after the return day, making it impossible for the defendant to file such a plea within the time prescribed by § 82 of the 1951 Practice Book.
Perhaps some other form of motion would be preferable, but the language of the court in Jepsen v. Toni Co., 20 Conn. Sup. 287, 294, seems to indicate the propriety of a motion to quash under such circumstances.