Malley v. Lane
| Decision Date | 23 December 1921 |
| Citation | 97 Conn. 133,115 A. 674 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | MALLEY v. LANE. |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; John J. Walsh Judge.
Action by Agnes Malley against David T. Lane. Judgment for plaintiff for $2,000, and defendant appeals. No error.
For some time before April 2, 1919, the plaintiff had been employed as a clerk by one Scalley, who owned and conducted a bookstore in Bridgeport. Scalley during this time had missed many books of considerable value which could not be accounted for, and had become convinced that the defendant, who had been in the habit of frequently visiting his store apparently to look over his books, had stolen the missing ones, and suspected that he would continue his thefts; and therefore Scalley made plans with the plaintiff and his brother, who was also employed as a clerk, to detect the defendant in the act and cause his arrest. The defendant entered Scalley's store late in the afternoon of April 2, 1919, and began to go about and look at the books. Thereupon Scalley, in a voice audible to the defendant, said to his clerks that he was going to leave the store for a while, and in accordance with their preconcerted plan the clerks retired to a room in the rear of the store, and Scalley, instead of going outside, hid himself in a place from which he could watch the defendant thus left alone. During the next 20 minutes Scalley saw the defendant conceal five books in his clothing. He then came from his hiding place, called to the plaintiff and his brother, and in their presence charged the defendant with having stolen the books which he had seen him conceal and others, demanded that he give up those he then had on his person, declared that he was going to arrest him for this and his previous thefts, and sent his brother out for a police officer to make the arrest. The defendant entreated Scalley not to cause his arrest, and, when Scalley repeated that he would do so, the defendant attempted to escape from the store. Scalley then placed his hand on the defendant's shoulder to stop him and told him he was under arrest for the thefts committed by him and would be detained until a policeman came. Thereupon the defendant attempted to push by Scalley, and seized him and choked him until he had overpowered him and thrown him to the floor bleeding and exhausted. While he was holding Scalley in this position and condition, the plaintiff took hold of the defendant's coat in order to save her employer from more serious injury which she thought threatened him, and to hold the defendant until an officer arrived. Thereupon the defendant grasped the plaintiff's right wrist and twisted and turned it with such violence that he threw her over a gas stove standing near by and hurled her upon the floor, where she lay crying out with pain while the defendant made his escape. She was partially unconscious 20 to 30 minutes, and afterward hysterical and fainting, and that night suffered intense pain from her swollen and inflamed wrist. Her physician prescribed complete rest until the swelling of her wrist should subside. After 3 or 4 weeks her physician although he did not then consider the injury to her wrist as serious, suggested that an X-ray picture of it might be taken; but the plaintiff, not knowing what an X-ray picture was, did not adopt the suggestion, and the physician did not again suggest the subject to her. She then resumed her usual work, but about 2 weeks later was compelled to give it up because of the resulting pain, inflammation, and congestion in her wrist. She went to her work again on August 14, 1919 and continued until December 17, 1919, when she was forced to cease by the same reasons. In June, 1920, she resumed her work again, and was compelled to desist in November, 1920 because of the same pains and conditions in her wrist, and her physician then advised her to cease to attempt to work and take a prolonged rest. During all this time the plaintiff's general health declined and her nervous condition was such that her physician would not advise her to submit to a surgical operation, which possibly might have restored her wrist to its normal state. Such an operation would cost about $150. The plaintiff was still suffering from her injuries at the time of the trial in March, 1921. Her wrist joint was dislocated and its ligaments detached by the violence of the assault made upon her by the defendant. These results are permanent and will prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the occupation by which she had earned her living. She is unmarried and dependent upon her earnings. She has spent $16 for services of physicians and for medicines. The value of the books which the defendant had stolen on the day he was apprehended by Scalley was less than $15.
The plaintiff at the time of the assault was a small, fragile woman. The defendant was a professional acrobat and in excellent physical condition.
The court found that the assault and battery made by the defendant was wanton and reckless, and allowed exemplary damages.
Edward J. McManus, of Bridgeport, for appellant.
Robert H. Gould, of Bridgeport, for appellee.
The defendant admits that on April 2, 1919, he stole books exposed for sale and of the value of less than $15, and that he was caught in the act by the owner of the books. He contends that this theft was not a felony, and therefore the owner of the books, since he was only a private person without a warrant in legal form, had no lawful right to arrest him or to detain him until a police officer could be got to arrest him. Hence, he maintains, the acts of Scalley, the owner of the stolen books, constituted an assault upon the defendant which he was justified in resisting as he did; and, when the plaintiff took hold of his coat in her attempt to assist and protect her employer, she committed another and independent assault on the defendant, against which he had a lawful right to defend himself in the manner he chose. The defendant claims that his crime was " petty larceny," because by statute it is punishable by a fine of not more than $100 and imprisonment of not more than 60 days, or both. He argues that this crime is only a misdemeanor, and for an offense of such low degree a private person without a proper warrant may not arrest or detain the offender.
The admitted crime was theft. In 1795 our court declared:
Wrexford v. Smith, 2 Root, 171.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anonymous (1971-4)
...State v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 6, 7, 8 A.2d 533, rev'd on other grounds, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213; Malley v. Lane, 97 Conn. 133, 138, 115 A. 674. The language used in the statute is plain and unambiguous. The legislative intent is clearly expressed and manifest. In ou......
-
State v. Updegraff
...83 S.E.2d at 102; accord Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 157, 45 S.Ct. 280, 286, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); see also Malley v. Lane, 97 Conn. 133, 115 A. 674, 676 (1921) (“ ‘The doctrine would seem to be that one who sees another committing a crime should do something to prevent it, or, f......
-
State v. Fields
...v. Cantwell, 126 Conn. 1, 6, 7, 8, A.2d 533, rev'd on other grounds, 310 U.S. 296, 309, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213; Malley v. Lane, 97 Conn. 133, 138, 115 A. 674. The language used in the statute is plain and unambiguous. The legislative intent is clearly expressed and manifest. In our sta......
-
Amellin v. Leone
... ... Conn. 450, 452, 12 A. 99; Craney v. Donovan, 95 ... Conn. 482, 484, 111 A. 796; Id., 92 Conn. 236, 102 ... A. 640, L.R.A. 1918C, 96; Malley v. Lane, 97 Conn ... 133, 139, 115 A. 674 ... There ... is no error ... In this ... opinion the other Judges ... ...