State v. Baird
| Decision Date | 19 November 1906 |
| Citation | 79 Vt. 257,65 A. 101 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BAIRD. |
Exceptions from Washington County Court; John W. Rowell, Judge.
Fred Baird was convicted of larceny, and he brings exceptions. Overruled.
Argued before TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, and MILES, JJ.
Benjamin Gates, State's Atty., for the State. M. M. Gordon and Senter & Senter, for respondent.
The respondent, a workman in the employ of Prindle & Averill and a brother-in-law of Prindle, was charged with stealing money from the partnership safe. The defense was that the money was taken by Prindle's direction. During Averill's cross-examination he testified that he had never had any considerable trouble with his partner, and upon objection being made to a further inquiry, respondent's counsel offered to show declarations and sworn statements made by the witness relative to the respondent and Prindle, and that witness had caused the arrest of the respondent and been active in the prosecution, and that one object he had in view was to drive Prindle out and get control of the business. The court said that any feeling the witness had against the respondent might be shown in a general way, but that counsel would not be permitted to go very much into detail. Counsel took an exception to this ruling, and made no further inquiry. The court's disposition of the matter was correct it permitted further inquiry as to the feelings of the witness towards the respondent, but with an intimation that not much detail would be allowed. It was within the discretion of the court to limit the inquiry. 2 Wig. Ev. § 951; Bertoli v. Smith, 69 Vt. 425, 38 Atl. 76. We do not know where the court would have drawn the line, for the inquiry was not pursued.
At the close of the state's evidence the respondent moved the court to direct his acquittal, on the ground that the state had failed to show that the money was not taken by the direction of Prindle. The state meets this point without claiming that the motion was waived by proceeding with the defense, and we dispose of the matter as argued. The motion was properly overruled. There was evidence that after the store was closed for the night the respondent went into it and opened the safe, appeared to take something out of the safe and put it into his pocket, and closed the safe and went out; that counts of the money made just before and just after this occurrence showed that $2.50 had been taken; and that when the respondent was arrested he said that he had not been to the safe and did not know the combination....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long
... ... one who testifies in court. But the cause or particulars [95 ... Vt. 488] thereof are not proper subjects of inquiry ( ... State v. Glynn, 51 Vt. 577; ... Bertoli v. Smith, 69 Vt. 425, 38 A. 76), ... except so far as the trial court, in its discretion, may ... allow. State v. Baird, 79 Vt. 257, 65 A ... 101; Dionne v. American Express Co., 91 Vt ... 521, 101 A. 209. It was held in Taylor v ... State, 121 Ga. 348, 49 S.E. 303, that, a witness ... having testified that he was an employee of he murdered man, ... the terms of his employment were irrelevant and ... ...
-
State v. Riggle
...v. Glynn, 51 Vt. 577; Bertoli v. Smith, 69 Vt. 425, 38 A. 76) except so far as the trial court, in its discretion, may allow (State v. Baird, 79 Vt. 257, 65 A. 101; Dionee v. American Express Co., 91 Vt. 521, 101 A. 209). It was held in Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 348, 49 S.E. 303, that, a wit......
-
State v. Long
...Glynn, 51 Vt. 577; Bertoli v. Smith, 69 Vt. 425, 38 Atl. 76) except so far as the trial court, in its discretion, may allow (State v. Baird, 79 Vt. 257, 65 Atl. 101; Dionne v. American Express CO., 91 Vt. 521, 101 Atl. 209). It was held in Taylor v. State, 121 Ga. 348, 49 S. E. 303, that, a......