Bradley v. Bailey

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BEARDSLEY, J.
• Citation: Bradley v. Bailey, 56 Conn. 374, 15 A. 746, 1 L.R.A. 427 (Conn. 1888)
• Decision Date: 18 January 1888
• Parties: BRADLEY v. BAILEY et al.

15 A. 746

56 Conn. 374

BRADLEY

v. BAILEY et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

January 18, 1888.

Appeal from court of common pleas, New Haven county; DEMING, Judge.

Trespass by James H. Bradley against George R. and Abraham L. Bailey for entering upon land occupied by plaintiff, and destroying a crop of rye growing thereon. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the court of common pleas, and defendants appealed.

L. Harrison and E. Zacher, for appellants. E. P. Arvine and G. A. Tyler, for appellee.

BEARDSLEY, J. This is a complaint in trespass, in which the defendants appeal from an adverse judgment in the court of common pleas. The material allegations of the complaint are that one John R. Bradley was tenant for life of a certain tract of land, of which the defendant George R. Bailey was tenant for life in remainder; that John B. Bailey, in the month of April, 1885, leased the tract to the plaintiff for the term of three years; that the plaintiff sowed a portion of the tract with winter rye on the 18th of September, 1885; and that John B. Bailey died on the 20th of September, 1885, and that George R. Bailey, and the other defendant, by his direction, in the month of June following, plowed in and destroyed the crop of rye then maturing The truth of these allegations of the complaint was admitted upon the trial, except that the defendant claimed that the rye was sown on the 19th instead of the 18th day of September, 1885; which, however, is immaterial. The only question which we are called upon to consider arose under the issue formed by the plaintiff's traverse of the second answer to the complaint, the material part of which is as follows: The defendants say that if the plaintiff did anything upon said premises on September 18th or 19th, 1885, he did the same with full knowledge that said John B. Bailey was then dying; that if he did anything it was nothing more than to harrow the soil in a hasty and superficial manner immediately after he had dug his crop of potatoes from the same, and to scatter a few seeds upon the same, without having first plowed and manured the same, as is customary and proper with the farmers in this state, and at an untimely season of the year, and without laying the same down to grass, as is customary and proper,—all of said acts of the plaintiff being for the purpose of defrauding said George R. Bailey in his use of and right to said land after the death of said John B. Bailey." Upon the trial of this case to the jury the plaintiff, in reply to inquiries made by the defendants upon cross-examination, described the manner in which he prepared the ground for the crop. The defendant afterwards asked his own witness this question: "What is the customary way of sowing rye, and preparing the ground for it?" The court excluded this question, upon the objection of the plaintiff that there was no established custom, and that it was immaterial. The defendants claimed the testimony to show that the land was not prepared in the customary way as a part of the alleged defense. This ruling of the court is assigned for error. In support of the allegation in the answer that the plaintiff knew that Bradley, the tenant for life, was dying when he sowed the crop, the defendants called Dr. Webb, the physician who attended him during the month of September, 1885, and who, after describing his symptoms, testified that for the last week or more of his life he was gradually failing every day, growing weaker and nearer to his end every day, and that this was apparent to every one who had common sense. It was admitted that at the time of his death, and for several months before, he resided...