Chatfield v. Bunnell

• Decision Date: 13 July 1897
• Citation: 69 Conn. 511,37 A. 1074
• Parties: CHATFIELD v. BUNNELL et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

37 A. 1074

69 Conn. 511

CHATFIELD

v. BUNNELL et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 13, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; John M. Thayer, Judge.

Action by Ransom Chatfield against George B. Bunnell and another for malicious prosecution. Judgment on a verdict for $900 for plaintiff. Defendants appeal, and also move to set aside verdict as against evidence. Motion denied. Judgment reversed.

The findings showed the following facts: Upon the trial the plaintiff offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that on the 10th day of May, 1895, he was a deputy sheriff of New Haven county, and that he then had in his hands, for service as such officer, a lawful writ of attachment against one Jean Pardee, wherein the defendants and John Clark were named as garnishees; that said Pardee was an actress then playing an engagement at the Hyperion Theater, in New Haven; that said Bunnell, one of the defendants, was manager of said theater, and that the defendant Peterson was the treasurer thereof, and as such sold tickets at the box office for admission to said theater; that the plaintiff on the evening of said day, at about 8 o'clock, began the service of said process, by leaving a duly-attested copy thereof in the hands of said Peterson, in said box office, and by attaching $12, in bank bills, which he found there, as the property of said Pardee; and that later in the evening he left like copies with the other garnishees at the theater, and afterwards duly completed the service of said writ, and returned it to the court to which it was returnable; that, after he had so served said writ upon the garnishees, said Bunnell caused him to be arrested and detained without warrant in said Bunnell's private office at said theater, and threatened to have him prosecuted, and that later, on the 14th day of June, 1895, the defendant maliciously caused him to be prosecuted before the city court of New Haven on the charge of theft, by making complaint to Mr. Matthewman, the city attorney, and charging the plaintiff with that crime; and that he was afterwards arrested and tried on said charge, and acquitted. The defendants offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that the plaintiff did not attach said money at the time he left the copy with Peterson, but that, having left the copy, he departed from the box office, and that after some time he returned stealthily from one side of the box office, thrust his hand through the window, and seized the package of bank bills, which was lying upon the shelf, and made off with the money, leaving no further papers with Peterson, and giving no explanation of the act; that later in the evening, when Peterson made up his accounts, he found $17 discrepancy; that the plaintiff was not detained nor arrested at the theater that evening, and that the defendants took no action in the matter until after the suit against Miss Pardee had been tried by the justice before whom it was returnable, because they expected that by the determination of that suit the money taken by the plaintiff would be returned to them; that shortly after the justice trial, they not having been called upon to disclose, and the money not having been returned to them, they went to the late Tilton B. Doolittle, then state's attorney, in order to ascertain their rights, and were by him referred to Mr. Matthewman, and that to him they made a fair and impartial statement of all the facts, and stated to him that they had come for the purpose of finding out their rights; that said Matthewman characterized the plaintiff's act in taking the money as a theft, and caused the plaintiff to be prosecuted for that crime; and that the defendants had no other part in said prosecution, except to appear when lawfully summoned before said city court to testify their knowledge of the transaction. The plaintiff, in testifying to the occurrences at the theater, testified that at the time he left the copy with Peterson the latter disclosed that he was not then indebted to Jean Pardee, and that he had previously been served with other papers, and also testified that the defendant Bunnell claimed that the money taken was his, and that the other garnishee, Clark, claimed that it was his. The defendants called Mr. Peterson as a witness, and the following question was put to him: "Will you state to the jury, please, the method, or whether there is any difference at all in the manner, in which the receipts from the shows is handled by you?" The question was objected to by the plaintiff's counsel as irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent. Counsel for the defendants claimed it upon grounds stated by him as follows: "Your honor will observe that there is a discrepancy. The amount of money taken was $12. Your honor has heard the statement made and claimed on our part that the amount taken may have been $17; and we think we have a right to show why it was that Mr. Peterson made that amount seventeen, instead of twelve, and that we can only do by showing to the jury the method of handling the receipts, and what became of them, in that house. As a matter of fact, our claim is that that night, when he came to balance his cash, there was a discrepancy of $17. Now, further, a claim was made by Mr. Bunnell that night that that money was his, and not Jean Pardee's. Now, that the jury may understand how it was that one could claim it and another could claim it, our claim is that we ought to be permitted to show to this jury that for a certain class of shows Mr. Peterson, as the agent for Mr. Bunnell, handles all the money. On the other hand, for a class of entertainments for Mr. Bunnell, in which Mr. Bunnell rents his house, Mr. Peterson becomes the agent of the parties renting it, and is then not the agent of Mr. Bunnell. Then, further than that, I desire to show that on this night in question he was selling tickets for a class of entertainments in which Mr. Bunnell was entitled to handle all his receipts through his agent, Mr. Peterson, and he was also selling tickets for other shows in which Mr. Peterson was not his agent at all, but the agent of other people. This jury cannot understand this fully unless he is permitted to testify in relation to the handling of these receipts,— whose they were on the night in question." The objection was sustained. The defendant Bunnell was called as a witness for the defense, and the following question was asked him by defendants' counsel: "Isn't it true, Mr. Bunnell, that, when Mr. Peterson is selling tickets for three shows at a time, it is impossible for you to tell, without consultation with Mr. Peterson, to whom the money belongs when it is received there?" The question was objected to as irrelevant and immaterial by plaintiff's counsel. The objection was sustained. The plaintiff had testified that before serving the copy upon Peterson he had watched the box office on the evening of May 10, 1895, and seen persons purchase tickets and pass along into the theater. The defendants, for the purpose of showing that none of the money received at the box office for tickets sold for the entertainment upon that night belonged to Jean Pardee or her assignee, John Clark, and for the purpose of showing that payment had already been made to Clark, asked the witness Peterson the following question: "Why did you not owe him [Clark] that night?" The question was objected to by the plaintiff's counsel. The objection was sustained. The plaintiff, to prove that he was arrested, tried, and discharged, offered testimony of the captain of police of the city of New Haven, with the record book of arrests kept in the police office, and the testimony of the clerk of the city court of New Haven,...