—the court seems to have allowed the state to appeal in a situation not specifically covered by statute.

—defining our common law as "the prevailing sense of the more enlightened members of a particular community, expressed through the instrumentality of the courts" [emphasis added

General Statutes, Rev. 1888, § 2812; Rev. 1902, § 4561; Rev. 1918, § 5292; Rev. 1949, § 7340.[1] It is presumed that changes in the language of a statute made when it is incorporated into a revision are not intended to alter its meaning and effect, and this is particularly true of the Revision of 1875.

The state may use the writ of error in a criminal case as a matter of right but it only applies for those claimed errors on the face of the record.

In short, although it is true that we "have never given to [the English common law] a slavish adherence";

—saying "While Connecticut has not formally adopted the common law of England by constitutional or legislative provision, we have made it our own by'practical adoption'with such exceptions as diversity of circumstances and customs require."

This right may be granted to the executive branch by statute, and where it is granted the accused is not deprived of his constitutional rights

As previously explained, our legal precedent has established that "the common law of England... is not necessarily the common law of Connecticut";

According to some decisions, even in absence of permissive statute, the state may review judgments in favor of accused on questions of law, where there has not been a judgment or verdict of acquittal by the jury.

O. Holmes, "The Path of the Law," Address at Boston University School of Law (January 8, 1897), in 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, 469 (1897

[CITATION] The constitution and criminal judicial process