State v. Bean

• Decision Date: 08 October 1935
• Citation: 180 A. 882
• Parties: STATE v. BEAN.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

180 A. 882

STATE

v. BEAN.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Orange.

Oct. 8, 1935.

Exceptions from Orange County Court; Walter H. Cleary, Judge.

Richard Bean was convicted of a breach of the peace, and he brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, THOMPSON, and SHERBURNE, JJ.

Shields & Conant, of St. Johnsbury, for respondent.

Stanley L. Chamberlin, State's Atty., of Randolph, for the State.

THOMPSON, Justice.

The respondent was convicted by a jury of a breach of the peace by assaulting and striking one Chester Pierce. At the close of the state's evidence, and again, at the close of all the evidence, the respondent moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the submission of the case to the jury. Each motion was denied, and the respondent was allowed an exception. The first motion was waived by the respondent proceeding with the trial, so we consider only the motion made at the close of all the evidence.

The alleged offense was committed between 1 and 2 o'clock Sunday afternoon, August 27, 1933, outside a small building, hereafter referred to as the golf office, on the golf course of the Lake Morey Inn in Fairlee. At that time the respondent was in charge of the golf office. Chester Pierce, who was a caddie on the golf course, and two other caddies, lived in Orford, N. H. Chester Pierce had driven in his car with Delbert Mack from Orford to get his brother and the two other caddies to take them home to dinner. He parked his car in front of the golf course and waited there in his car. Charles Pierce and a caddie by the name of George Orton got into the car where they waited for another caddie, Frank Perry, who had to carry some golf clubs to a car that was some distance away. It appeared that Charles Pierce and the respondent, who was also a caddie had had some trouble on the golf course earlier in the day.

The evidence is conflicting, but viewing it in the light most favorable to the state, the jury would have been justified in finding the following facts: Before Frank Perry arrived at the car Charles Pierce got out of it and went to the office building to get a drink of water, but he did not get any water because the water bottle was broken. He and the respondent then had an argument that resulted in a physical encounter on the walk that went around the office in the office building. Charles called the respondent a name and the latter struck at him but did not hit him. Charles then tackled the respondent around the legs which threw the latter across a railing and he was holding him there. Chester Pierce and the boys with him saw the respondent strike at Charles and they left the car and went over to the office building. Chester Pierce separated the respondent and Charles and told the latter to get up and go home. The respondent then struck at Chester but he did not hit him. He did hit Delbert Mack a blow in the neck.

After Chester separated the respondent and Charles, they all went out onto the grass, ten or fifteen feet from the office building. As they were leaving the building the respondent was trying to get hold of Charles and Chester was trying to separate them. As they left the building and got on the grass the respondent struck Chester a hard blow under the jaw that knocked him down and rendered him unconscious for a few minutes. The blow was hard enough to cause a longitudinal cut about an inch to an inch and a half long and a transverse cut about an inch long in his tongue. The inside of his tongue was turned almost inside out. He was taken to a hospital later in the day where four or five stiches were taken in his tongue. While Chester was unconscious, Charles and the respondent resumed their fighting. Charles got the respondent on the ground face down and was holding him there. When Chester became conscious he separated them, and he and the boys with him got into his car and went home. The respondent did not at any time tell Chester Pierce and the other boys to leave the office building, but, as they were leaving to go home, he called them names and told them to get off the premises. Chester Pierce did not at any time threaten the respondent or strike him. His endeavors were directed to separating him and Charles and to get the latter to go home. The whole affray lasted about five minutes.

The respondent argues that he did no more in defending himself and protecting the property in his charge than he had a legal right to do, and that he committed no crime. There is no evidence that Chester Pierce and the other boys attempted to injure or destroy any of the golf course property. The jury would have been justified in finding that what he did was not in defense of himself and the property in his charge, but to settle a personal animosity against Charles Pierce by personal combat; that if he had remained in the office building after the other boys...