defendant has assigned error in Connecticut

1982The defendant, in his brief, has relied heavily on reasoning in cases such as State v. Jonas, 169 Conn. 566 , 363 A.2d 1378 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 923 , 96 S. Ct. 1132 , 47 L.

1982The defendant, in his brief, has relied heavily on reasoning in cases such as State v. Jonas, 169 Conn. 566 , 363 A.2d 1378 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 923 , 96 S. Ct. 1132 , 47 L.

1982The defendant, in his brief, has relied heavily on reasoning in cases such as State v. Jonas, 169 Conn. 566 , 363 A.2d 1378 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 923 , 96 S. Ct. 1132 , 47 L.

1982The defendant, in his brief, has relied heavily on reasoning in cases such as State v. Jonas, 169 Conn. 566 , 363 A.2d 1378 (1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 923 , 96 S. Ct. 1132 , 47 L.

1979State v. Hunt, 280 S.W.2d 37 (Mo.); People v. Berger, 44 Cal. 2d 459 , 282 P.2d 509 ; W.

1979State v. Hunt, 280 S.W.2d 37 (Mo.); People v. Berger, 44 Cal. 2d 459 , 282 P.2d 509 ; W.

1979State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 144 , 374 A.2d 150 (1976); Thomas v. Thomas, 159 Conn. 477, 480 , 271 A.2d 62 (1970); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 241. *130 The testimony to which the defendant has assigned error concerning the burglary was given by three witnesses, Domenic DeLueia, James Arcangelo and Anthony DeLueia, called by the state in presenting its case in chief. 4 The sum and substance of their testimony was as follows: Domenic DeLueia took the stand and testified on direct that between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on March 5, 1975, the day of the assault on the Massaros, he was a pass

1979State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 144 , 374 A.2d 150 (1976); Thomas v. Thomas, 159 Conn. 477, 480 , 271 A.2d 62 (1970); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 241. *130 The testimony to which the defendant has assigned error concerning the burglary was given by three witnesses, Domenic DeLueia, James Arcangelo and Anthony DeLueia, called by the state in presenting its case in chief. 4 The sum and substance of their testimony was as follows: Domenic DeLueia took the stand and testified on direct that between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on March 5, 1975, the day of the assault on the Massaros, he was a pass

1979State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 144 , 374 A.2d 150 (1976); Thomas v. Thomas, 159 Conn. 477, 480 , 271 A.2d 62 (1970); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 241. *130 The testimony to which the defendant has assigned error concerning the burglary was given by three witnesses, Domenic DeLueia, James Arcangelo and Anthony DeLueia, called by the state in presenting its case in chief. 4 The sum and substance of their testimony was as follows: Domenic DeLueia took the stand and testified on direct that between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on March 5, 1975, the day of the assault on the Massaros, he was a pass

1979State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 144 , 374 A.2d 150 (1976); Thomas v. Thomas, 159 Conn. 477, 480 , 271 A.2d 62 (1970); 1 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (13th Ed.) § 241. *130 The testimony to which the defendant has assigned error concerning the burglary was given by three witnesses, Domenic DeLueia, James Arcangelo and Anthony DeLueia, called by the state in presenting its case in chief. 4 The sum and substance of their testimony was as follows: Domenic DeLueia took the stand and testified on direct that between 9 and 9:30 p.m. on March 5, 1975, the day of the assault on the Massaros, he was a pass

1979State v. Hunt, 280 S.W.2d 37 (Mo.); People v. Berger, 44 Cal. 2d 459 , 282 P.2d 509 ; W.

1975As this court, however, observed in Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 489 , 352 A.2d 277 , quoting from Crowell v. Palmer, 134 Conn. 502, 510 , 58 A.2d 729 : “ ‘Where a defendant has by his wrongful conduct made the calculation of damages difficult, he will not he heard to urge such difficulty as a reason for not assessing by approximation.’ ” It also appears that the defendant during the summer of 1973 did some part-time carpentry work for remuneration which was not reported on his affidavit submitted at the hearing for modification.

1975As this court, however, observed in Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 489 , 352 A.2d 277 , quoting from Crowell v. Palmer, 134 Conn. 502, 510 , 58 A.2d 729 : “ ‘Where a defendant has by his wrongful conduct made the calculation of damages difficult, he will not he heard to urge such difficulty as a reason for not assessing by approximation.’ ” It also appears that the defendant during the summer of 1973 did some part-time carpentry work for remuneration which was not reported on his affidavit submitted at the hearing for modification.

1975This basic law relating to proof of chain of custody in drug cases recently has been followed in State v. Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 237 , 355 A.2d 95 ; State v. Johnson, 166 Conn. 439, 443 , 352 A.2d 294 ; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 605 , 345 A.2d 17 . *123 III The defendant has assigned error in that portion of the charge to the jury concerning delays which occurred in the case. 1 The defendant excepted on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law and infringed on the jury’s power to find reasonable doubt on the evidence.

1975This basic law relating to proof of chain of custody in drug cases recently has been followed in State v. Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 237 , 355 A.2d 95 ; State v. Johnson, 166 Conn. 439, 443 , 352 A.2d 294 ; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 605 , 345 A.2d 17 . *123 III The defendant has assigned error in that portion of the charge to the jury concerning delays which occurred in the case. 1 The defendant excepted on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law and infringed on the jury’s power to find reasonable doubt on the evidence.

1975As this court, however, observed in Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 489 , 352 A.2d 277 , quoting from Crowell v. Palmer, 134 Conn. 502, 510 , 58 A.2d 729 : “ ‘Where a defendant has by his wrongful conduct made the calculation of damages difficult, he will not he heard to urge such difficulty as a reason for not assessing by approximation.’ ” It also appears that the defendant during the summer of 1973 did some part-time carpentry work for remuneration which was not reported on his affidavit submitted at the hearing for modification.

1975As this court, however, observed in Baker v. Baker, 166 Conn. 476, 489 , 352 A.2d 277 , quoting from Crowell v. Palmer, 134 Conn. 502, 510 , 58 A.2d 729 : “ ‘Where a defendant has by his wrongful conduct made the calculation of damages difficult, he will not he heard to urge such difficulty as a reason for not assessing by approximation.’ ” It also appears that the defendant during the summer of 1973 did some part-time carpentry work for remuneration which was not reported on his affidavit submitted at the hearing for modification.

1975This basic law relating to proof of chain of custody in drug cases recently has been followed in State v. Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 237 , 355 A.2d 95 ; State v. Johnson, 166 Conn. 439, 443 , 352 A.2d 294 ; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 605 , 345 A.2d 17 . *123 III The defendant has assigned error in that portion of the charge to the jury concerning delays which occurred in the case. 1 The defendant excepted on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law and infringed on the jury’s power to find reasonable doubt on the evidence.

1975This basic law relating to proof of chain of custody in drug cases recently has been followed in State v. Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 237 , 355 A.2d 95 ; State v. Johnson, 166 Conn. 439, 443 , 352 A.2d 294 ; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 605 , 345 A.2d 17 . *123 III The defendant has assigned error in that portion of the charge to the jury concerning delays which occurred in the case. 1 The defendant excepted on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law and infringed on the jury’s power to find reasonable doubt on the evidence.

1975N.Y.); People v. Perrell, 47 Misc. 2d 1024 , 263 N.Y.S.2d 640 . *403 The defendant has assigned as error the court’s denial of his request for an expert witness funded by the state.

1975N.Y.); People v. Perrell, 47 Misc. 2d 1024 , 263 N.Y.S.2d 640 . *403 The defendant has assigned as error the court’s denial of his request for an expert witness funded by the state.

1975The law as included in the charge was obviously taken from the decision in United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 321-22 , 92 S. Ct. 455 , 30 L.

1975The law as included in the charge was obviously taken from the decision in United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 321-22 , 92 S. Ct. 455 , 30 L.

1975This basic law relating to proof of chain of custody in drug cases recently has been followed in State v. Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 237 , 355 A.2d 95 ; State v. Johnson, 166 Conn. 439, 443 , 352 A.2d 294 ; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 605 , 345 A.2d 17 . *123 III The defendant has assigned error in that portion of the charge to the jury concerning delays which occurred in the case. 1 The defendant excepted on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law and infringed on the jury’s power to find reasonable doubt on the evidence.

1975This basic law relating to proof of chain of custody in drug cases recently has been followed in State v. Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 237 , 355 A.2d 95 ; State v. Johnson, 166 Conn. 439, 443 , 352 A.2d 294 ; State v. Hall, 165 Conn. 599, 605 , 345 A.2d 17 . *123 III The defendant has assigned error in that portion of the charge to the jury concerning delays which occurred in the case. 1 The defendant excepted on the ground that it was an incorrect statement of the law and infringed on the jury’s power to find reasonable doubt on the evidence.

1975Recently, in Anderson & McPadden, Inc. v. Tunucci, 167 Conn. 584, 590-91 , 356 A.2d 873 , we had occasion to discuss the standards by which such comments are to be weighed, both as to necessity and propriety.

1975Recently, in Anderson & McPadden, Inc. v. Tunucci, 167 Conn. 584, 590-91 , 356 A.2d 873 , we had occasion to discuss the standards by which such comments are to be weighed, both as to necessity and propriety.

1975To secure these additions of facts the defendant has accordingly referred in its brief to parts of the appendix. 2 See Walsh v. Turlick, 164 Conn. 75, 76 , 316 A.2d 759 ; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 158.

1975To secure these additions of facts the defendant has accordingly referred in its brief to parts of the appendix. 2 See Walsh v. Turlick, 164 Conn. 75, 76 , 316 A.2d 759 ; Maltbie, Conn. App. Proc. § 158.

1974The referee’s conclusions are tested by the finding; State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 638 , 325 A.2d 251 ; Brauer v. Freccia, 159 Conn. 289, 293 , 268 A.2d 645 ; and they must stand unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless they involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case.

1974The referee’s conclusions are tested by the finding; State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 638 , 325 A.2d 251 ; Brauer v. Freccia, 159 Conn. 289, 293 , 268 A.2d 645 ; and they must stand unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless they involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case.

1974The referee’s conclusions are tested by the finding; State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 638 , 325 A.2d 251 ; Brauer v. Freccia, 159 Conn. 289, 293 , 268 A.2d 645 ; and they must stand unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless they involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case.

1974The referee’s conclusions are tested by the finding; State v. Villafane, 164 Conn. 637, 638 , 325 A.2d 251 ; Brauer v. Freccia, 159 Conn. 289, 293 , 268 A.2d 645 ; and they must stand unless they are legally or logically inconsistent with the facts found or unless they involve the application of some erroneous rule of law material to the case.

1971Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. Leonard, 156 Conn. 75, 77 , 239 A.2d 500 ; Bartlett v. Flaherty, 155 Conn. 203, 205 , 230 A.2d 436 . *194 The defendant’s primary claim is that as judgment was rendered more than two years after the commencement of this action to foreclose the mechanic’s lien, it is barred by statute.

1971Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. Leonard, 156 Conn. 75, 77 , 239 A.2d 500 ; Bartlett v. Flaherty, 155 Conn. 203, 205 , 230 A.2d 436 . *194 The defendant’s primary claim is that as judgment was rendered more than two years after the commencement of this action to foreclose the mechanic’s lien, it is barred by statute.

1971Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. Leonard, 156 Conn. 75, 77 , 239 A.2d 500 ; Bartlett v. Flaherty, 155 Conn. 203, 205 , 230 A.2d 436 . *194 The defendant’s primary claim is that as judgment was rendered more than two years after the commencement of this action to foreclose the mechanic’s lien, it is barred by statute.

1971Johnston Jewels, Ltd. v. Leonard, 156 Conn. 75, 77 , 239 A.2d 500 ; Bartlett v. Flaherty, 155 Conn. 203, 205 , 230 A.2d 436 . *194 The defendant’s primary claim is that as judgment was rendered more than two years after the commencement of this action to foreclose the mechanic’s lien, it is barred by statute.

1968Yates v. Yates, 155 Conn. 544, 547 , 235 A.2d 656 ; White v. White, 138 Conn. 1, 5 , 81 A.2d 450 .

1968Yates v. Yates, 155 Conn. 544, 547 , 235 A.2d 656 ; White v. White, 138 Conn. 1, 5 , 81 A.2d 450 .

1968Yates v. Yates, 155 Conn. 544, 547 , 235 A.2d 656 ; White v. White, 138 Conn. 1, 5 , 81 A.2d 450 .

1968Yates v. Yates, 155 Conn. 544, 547 , 235 A.2d 656 ; White v. White, 138 Conn. 1, 5 , 81 A.2d 450 .

1948In Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 257 , 56 A. 2d 655 , we reviewed the history of § 6010, and said (p. 259) that it limits to three years actions on contracts not reduced to or evidenced by a writing, that is, contracts resting in parol, and that it applies only to executory contracts.

1948In Hitchcock v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 134 Conn. 246, 257 , 56 A. 2d 655 , we reviewed the history of § 6010, and said (p. 259) that it limits to three years actions on contracts not reduced to or evidenced by a writing, that is, contracts resting in parol, and that it applies only to executory contracts.

1944The permission to amend rested in the court’s discretion, but, by reason of the *433 condition precedent as to notice prescribed in the statute (Forbes v. Suffield, 81 Conn. 274, 275 , 70 Atl. 1023 ), the allowance of the amendment could not be effective to enlarge or extend the plaintiff’s right of recovery in violation of the restriction so imposed.

1944The permission to amend rested in the court’s discretion, but, by reason of the *433 condition precedent as to notice prescribed in the statute (Forbes v. Suffield, 81 Conn. 274, 275 , 70 Atl. 1023 ), the allowance of the amendment could not be effective to enlarge or extend the plaintiff’s right of recovery in violation of the restriction so imposed.