Anderson v. Cowles

Decision Date27 October 1899
Citation44 A. 477,72 Conn. 335
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesANDERSON v. COWLES.

Appeal from superior court, Litchfield county; Alberto T. Roraback, Judge.

Action by John Anderson against Truman Cowles for maliciously causing a search warrant to be issued under which plaintiff's premises were entered and searched. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

The complaint in this case was as follows: "(1) On the 28th day of September, 1896, the defendant made, signed, and published a paper writing, concerning the plaintiff, of which Exhibit A hereto annexed is a copy. (2) On said day the defendant exhibited said paper writing to Henry T. Dayton, of Watertown, Conn., by whom the same was read, and requested said Dayton to issue a search warrant thereon to search the dwelling house and buildings or barns of the plaintiff, and to arrest the body of the plaintiff. (3) On said day the defendant made oath before said Dayton to the truth of the allegations in said paper writing contained. (4) On said day, in compliance with said request, said Dayton made, issued, and signed a certificate of said oath, a copy of which is annexed hereto, and marked 'Exhibit B,' and the other paper writing, a copy of which is hereto annexed, and marked 'Exhibit C (5) On said day said paper writing signed by the defendant, and said certificate of oath and said other paper writing signed by said Dayton, being all on the same paper, were, by the defendant, exhibited and shown to one Henry G. Scott, of said Watertown, and to one Frank O. Peck, of said Watertown, who read the same. (6) The defendant on said day placed said entire paper with the words shown in Exhibits A, B, and C thereon in the hands of said Scott, and requested said Scott and said Peck to proceed with him to search the dwelling house, buildings, and barns of the plaintiff, situated in the town of Bethlehem. (7) In pursuance of said request, on said day the defendant, said Scott, and said Peck proceeded to the premises of the plaintiff, in the town of Bethlehem, and said Scott did then and there, in the presence of the plaintiff, the defendant, and said Peck, read the words contained in Exhibits A, B, and C, and the defendant, said Scott, and said Peck did then and there with force and arms unlawfully and against the wish of the plaintiff enter upon and search the dwelling house, buildings, and barns of the plaintiff. (8) The plaintiff was then unwell, and said search did greatly disturb his mind and body, and his sickness was thereby increased and augmented. (9) The words described in paragraph 1 of this complaint concerning the plaintiff were false. (10) The acts of the defendant described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of this complaint were malicious. (11) There was no reasonable or probable cause for said acts of the defendant. The plaintiff claims $5,000 damages."

Exhibit A: "To Frank Stockman, of Bethlehem, justice of the peace for Litchfield county, comes Truman Cowles, of Hartford, Hartford county, state of Connecticut, and complains as well as in the name of the state of Connecticut as in his own name that one John Anderson, of Bethlehem, in said county, between July 1, 1894, and September 28, 1896, at said Bethlehem, one set of wagon tires about 2 1/2 inches wide, one wagon pole (strengthened with iron underneath), 1 set mowing-machine whiffletrees, 2 hay forks, 3 or 4 chains, also a lot of yellow corn in the ear, of the proper goods of the said Truman Cowles, and of the value of seventy-five dollars, then and there being, with force and arms feloniously did steal, take, and carry away from and out of the possession of the said complainant; who further complains and informs that he has good grounds to suspect, and doth suspect, that the said John Anderson hath feloniously secreted and concealed said stolen goods in his dwelling house and other outbuildings and barns, in said Bethlehem, and that said goods are now so feloniously concealed and secreted by the said John Anderson in his dwelling house, outbuildings, and barns; against the peace and contrary to the statute in such case provided, and to the damage of the complainant the sum of seventy-five dollars. And the complainant prays that process may issue to search for said stolen goods, and to arrest the said John Anderson, that he may be examined, and dealt with according to law."

Exhibit C: "Whereas, the foregoing complaint hath been made to me, and the said ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Moriarty v. Lippe
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1972
    ...of an alleged criminal act. State v. Pape, 90 Conn. 98, 96 A. 313; Flanagan v. McLane, 87 Conn. 220, 87 A. 727; Anderson v. Cowles, 72 Conn. 335, 44 A. 477; Dennehy v. O'Connell, 66 Conn. 175, 33 A. 920; 50 Am.Jur.2d, Libel and Slander, § 214.3 This is a sufficient showing to prevent a dire......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Wallin
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1903
    ...Enc. Law 685. The court erred in permitting letters of F. K. Barton to be read in evidence. 41 F. 898; 95 Ib. 926; 44 Cal. 609; 5 Cal. 1; 72 Conn. 335; 77 Ill. 32; Ky. 365; 51 S.W. 194; 65 Minn. 256; 61 Hun, 48; 52 Pa.St. 419; 147 Pa.St. 594; 148 Mass. 546; 48 La.Ann. 334; 20 Mont. 163; 44 ......
  • Hogan v. New York Times Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • July 19, 1962
    ...standard was adhered to in Ely v. Mason, supra note 20, at 44, 115 A. at 481. See also the standards approved in Anderson v. Cowles, 72 Conn. 335, 339, 44 A. 477, 478 (1899) ("reason to believe"); Gray v. Mossman, 88 Conn. 247, 251, 90 A. 938 (1914) ("unjustifiable motive"); Gray v. Mossman......
  • Chapel-High Corp. v. Cavallaro
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1954
    ...personalty, the attachment was illegal, and the parties so concede. This made the defendant a trespasser ab initio. Anderson v. Cowles, 72 Conn. 335, 338, 44 A. 477. It by no means follows, however, that the trespass was against the plaintiff's real Trespass is founded on a violation of the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT