in the distribution among the children of an intestate, respected real estate in like manner with personal. The widow had her third in the real estate for life only. It is evident that the principal point in view was to make real estate partible among the children of an intestate; and that they never considered the full operation of the clause in the statute, and which was also brought into the act, that where there were no children the whole estate should go to the next of kin of the intestate. Accordingly, for more than thirty years after the framing of this law, it was a prevailing practice, though perhaps not universal, for real estate to descend and be distributed by the court of probate as at common law, the instances of children of intestates only excepted. At length, by judgment of common law, first the half-blood, then the father and the mother have been determined to be entitled to the real, in like manner with the personal estate. General entails were adjudged, notwithstanding, to be partible. It has been supposed that upon this principle, that by this act the common law was altered only in respect to intestate estates, and takes place in devises as if it had not been made. It was indeed, in express terms declared in the law of the Plymouth colony, that lands in fee simple should go to all the sons, the eldest a double share, but that entails should go according to the laws of England.(a)

§ 61. In 1672, a new digest of the laws was made and printed. There was no other edition published after the union. In 1814, the colonial and provisional laws were both published by order of the legislature, under the supervision of Ashael Stearns and Lemuel Shaw. No edition of this law has been published since. Under the province there were numerous editions of the laws

(@) 2 Hutch. His. 63, 64, 65, 66.

published, but the names of the editors do not appear in them. They were all published by order of the general court, as follows:

In 1703, all the laws from June, 1692, to May, 1703.

In 1726, a new edition, containing all the laws from 1792 to that time.

In 1750, another edition was published containing all the laws to May, 1750.

In 1755, another edition containing all previous laws to May of that year.

In 1765, there was an edition of temporary acts and laws from 1736 to 1765.

Mr. Brigham says there may have been some other editions of the province laws published, but he has been unable to find any until the one in 1814, before mentioned, which is the last. Under the State Constitution, there have been published the following editions of the state laws, viz:

In 1788, all laws from the adoption of the constitution in 1780 to May session, 1788.

In 1796, laws from 1789 to 1796.
In 1801, laws from 1780 to 1801.
In 1816, laws from 1780 to 1816, in four vols.

In 1823, the general laws from 1780 to 1822, under the supervision of Ashael Stearns, Lemuel Shaw and T. Metcalf, Esqıs., in two volumes. Also, the special laws for the same period in five volumes.

In 1836, the Revised Statutes were published under the supervision of T. Metcalf and Horace Mann, Esqrs. In 1837, the special laws from 1822 to 1837, were published under the supervision of Samuel B. Walcott, Esq. These, it is believed, are all the editions of the state laws which have been published, except such as have been printed annually by the legislature.


$ 62. CONNECTICUT was originally founded under two distinct and independent colonial governments. The seat of government of the one was at Hartford, and that of the other at New Haven. They remained as independent governments until they were united under the charter of Charles II. of 1662. The union was not consummated until 1665. The colonists, who emigrated from England, brought with them a knowledge of the law and jurisprudence of that country. It cannot be said that they were necessarily subject to them, as those laws had no extra territorial authority, hence could not bind their persons; nor were they at all adapted to their new condition in their new circumstances; nor was it possible they should be, for it has been justly said that “The principles of their government, as it respected the prerogatives of the crown, the estate, rights, and powers of the lords, and the tenure of their lands, were derived from the feudal system. The privilege of sending members of parliament from the towns, cities and boroughs, to compose one branch of the legislature, and an exemption from taxation only by their consent, was extorted from the kings by the barons, and is confirmed by the great charter of liberties as of his gift and grant. Their other laws were calculated for a great commercial nation. As to their criminal code, it was adapted to a people grown old in the habits of vice-where the grossest enormities and crimes were practiced. In every respect, therefore, their laws were unsuited to an infant colony or state, where the government was in the people, and which had virtue for its principle, and the public good for its object and end—where the tenure of their lands was free and absolute, the objects of trade few, and the commission of crimes rare. Thus circumstanced, they very early established a constitution and government by their own authority, which was adapted to their situation, and enacted laws for the due and regular administration of justice(a)

The colonial history of Connecticut is divided into three subdivisions. The first, embracing the history of the Connecticut colony from its first settlement in 1636, down to the period of the union of the New Haven and Connecticut colonies. The second, comprising the history of the colony of New Haven from 1637 to the same period. The third, the history of the two colonies united, from the union in 1665 to the period of the American Revolution.

§ 63. The emigrants to the colony of Connecticut under the guidance and direction of Pynchean and Haines, pitched their tents on the western banks of the river Connecticut, near Hartford, in 1636; having first obtained permission of the general court of Massachusetts. It is difficult to discover what was the object of this permission, unless it was under the assumption that the citizen did not possess the right of expatriation from the colony to which he had attached himself without its consent; for the preamble to the commission itself acknowledged that the lands which they intended to take possession of, were without the commonwealth and body of Massachusetts, and that certain noblemen in England claimed jurisdiction there; and, because their minds were unknown, and there was a necessity of some government there, without the least pretence of authority to do so, they appointed Roger Ludlow, Esq., and

(a) Robertson's Am. 3, 4.

others therein named, with full power and authority to hear and determine, in a judicial way, all matters in difference between party and party, to inflict corporal punishment, imprisonment and fines, and to make orders and decrees for the present, as should be necessary for the plantation relating to trading, planting, building, military discipline, or defensive war, if need required, and to convene the inhabitants in a general court : the commission to terminate in one year, and might be recalled if a form of government should sooner be agreed on between the said nobles, the inhabitants, and Massachusetts.(a)

Hutchinson supposes that there is no accounting for this stretch of power, except upon the principle, at that time generally received, and which was afterward declared by the general court, That the oath of fidelity to the commonwealth was binding even though the person should no longer reside within the limits (6)

§ 64. In 1636, the inhabitants of this colony, then resident in the three towns of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield, entered into a voluntary association, chose magistrates, made laws for themselves, and convened the first general court of the colony on the 6th day of April of that year.

The territory comprised within its limits in 1630 had been granted by the council of Plymouth to Robert, the Earl of Warwick, which was subsequently confirmed by a patent from Charles I.(c)

In 1631, the Earl of Warwick, President of the Council of Plymouth, granted unto the Hon. William Viscount Say and Seal, and to others, their heirs, assignees and associates, forever, “ All that part of New

(a) 1 Hutch. Hist. 96.
(3) Ibid. 96, 97.
(c) i Hol. An. 260 ; 1 Chalm. Ann. 299.

« ForrigeFortsett »