State v. Kallaher

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtHALL, J.
Citation39 A. 606,70 Conn. 398
PartiesSTATE v. KALLAHER.
Decision Date02 March 1898
39 A. 606
70 Conn. 398

STATE
v.
KALLAHER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 2, 1898.


Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; George W. Wheeler. Judge.

J. Thomas Kallaher, alias Thomas J. Kallaher, was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The information contained three counts; the first charging the theft, on February 23, 1897, of $200 from Ellen F. Munson; the second, the theft, on the 8th day of March, 1897, of $800 from Ellen F. Munson; and the third, the theft, on the 8th of March, 1897, of $800 from George O. Munson. At the conclusion of the testimony, the attorney for the state disclaimed a conviction on the first and second counts, and claimed a conviction upon the third count only. The jury found the accused guilty on the third count, and not guilty on the first and second counts.

Upon the trial of said cause, the state offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that in June, 1896, said Munson employed the accused as a farm hand; that he continued substantially all of the time in the employ of said Munson as such farm hand from that time until the 21st of February, 1897, when he was discharged on account of his intemperate habits; that in August and September, 1896, there was some talk between the accused and Munson and his wife about going into the chicken business together, but the parties never arrived at any agreement; that the accused, at the time he was discharged, in February, 1897, claimed that Munson was indebted to him for his work; that Munson did not in fact owe the accused anything at that time, and so stated to the accused; that the accused thereupon threatened said Munson and his wife that if they did not settle with him, and pay him what he demanded, he would cause everything they had to be attached and taken from them, but offered to settle with them in full for $200, and give a receipt in full. The accused continuing to threaten more or less if they did not settle with him, and pay the $200, on February 23, 1897, the said Mrs. Munson gave him $200 in full settlement of all claims whatsoever, but the accused never gave a receipt in full, and would not do so. Thereupon the accused left, but again returned, and on the 3d day of March, for the first time, spoke to Mrs. Munson about having a further claim upon her and her husband, by reason of their failure to go into the chicken business with him, and that they must pay him, to settle such claim, the sum of $800, and that, if they did not do so, he would cause all of their property to be attached and taken from them, and their house to be burned and destroyed, so there would be nothing left but chimneys to tell the tale. He came again to the Munson house about 9 o'clock in the evening of March 11th, in a somewhat intoxicated condition. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Munson and their two children were ill, and unable to leave the house The accused renewed his claim for the $800. informing her that he knew they had the money in the house, and threatening at first that, if they did not pay the money to him immediately, he would cause everything they had to be attached, saying that he had been to New Haven that afternoon, and seen his lawyer; that the papers bad been drawn, and were in the hands of Sheriff Spiegel, who would be out there the first thing in the morning to attach everything they had, but that, if they paid him the money that night, he could stop it; and latterly, however, threatening that, if they did not pay over the money to him immediately, he would burn and destroy their house, and that there would be no one left to tell the tale. Mrs. Munson inquired of him: "What do you mean? That you will burn us up with it?" He replied that he did. He repeated these threats until after 11 o'clock, and Mrs. Munson was crying during the time of the threats and because of them, and finally she called her husband

39 A. 607

down from upstairs, and told him, in the presence of the accused, what he had been saying to her; and thereupon the accused repeated the threats in the presence of Mr. Munson, also remarking, referring to his courage and ability, that, "if he was in a crowd, he didn't care for anything but a knife; he would cut his way through." During the time of the threats as aforesaid, Mrs. Munson had endeavored to persuade him to wait until morning, but he refused to consent to any delay, but insisted that he must have the money then, that night; and finally Mr. Munson, through fear of his (the accused's) burning and destroying life, as he had threatened, took $800 from his safe, and handed it to his wife, in the presence of the accused, that she might count it; and thereupon the accused took it from Mrs. Munson's hands, and remained in the house about 15 minutes, when he left, it then being about 12 o'clock midnight. Thereupon the accused left the house with the money, and went to New Haven.

The defendant offered evidence to prove, and claimed to have proved, that, while working for said Munson, he was dissatisfied with his position, and told the said Munson that he should leave; that thereupon Munson, about September 1st, represented to him that, if he would stay, he (Munson) would go into the poultry business with him that winter, and give him an interest therein; that thereafter the defendant remained with said Munson until about February 18, 1897, and that during said time he rendered services, negotiated for the purchase of materials, and assisted in the construction of a building for the said Munson, in preparation for the carrying on of said business agreed upon; that about the 18th day of February, 1897, said Munson refused to carry out the agreement to go into business with the defendant; that the defendant thereupon threatened to bring suit against said Munson, and to attach his property for failure to carry out said agreement, and that thereupon said George and Ellen F. Munson promised the defendant at that time that said George Munson would pay him $1,000 damages for the breach of his contract to go into said business aforesaid; that on the 23d day of February, 1897, the said George and Ellen F. Munson paid the defendant $200 in partial settlement of the claim which he had against them aforesaid, and that on said day the defendant gave to the said Ellen F. Munson a simple receipt for said $200, but refused to give a receipt in full, though requested to do so; that on the 1st day of March, 1897, the defendant came to the house of the Munsons, to collect the additional $800 agreed on, intending to go to Hartford that night; that the said George and Ellen F. Munson promised him then that he should be paid the $800 the following Thursday if he would stay over with them, and he assented; that thereafter the defendant was taken sick, and the said Ellen F. Munson became sick, and it was agreed that the payment of said sum of money should be postponed until Tuesday, the 11th of March; that thereafter, on the evening of the said 11th day of March, the defendant demanded said sum of $800, and stated that, if the sum was not paid immediately,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 191, 193, 110 A. 844; State v. Levine, 79 Conn. 714, 717, 66 A. 529, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 286; State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398, 409, 39 A. 606. 'When a person by trick or fraud obtains possession of property, intending at the time of obtaining the property to convert i......
  • Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., No. 35107.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 19, 1923
    ...a voluntary one, as the result of fear, induced by threats, it is a taking without the owner's consent, and a larceny. State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398, 39 Atl. 606, 66 Am. St. Rep. 116; 17 R. C. L. 18. In State v. Hall, 76 Iowa, 85, 87, 40 N. W. 107, 108 (14 Am. St. Rep. 204), we said: “If ......
  • Cedar Rapids National Bank v. American Surety Co. of New York, 35107
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 19, 1923
    ...a voluntary one, as the result of fear, induced by threats, it is a taking without the owner's consent, and a larceny. State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398; 17 Ruling Case Law 18, 39 A. 606. In State v. Hall, 76 Iowa 85, 87, 40 N.W. 107, we said: "If possession is obtained by a trick, artifice, ......
  • State v. Robington
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 25, 1950
    ...as well as possession, whatever other crime may have been committed, it will not be theft.' State v. Rapsey, supra; State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398, 409, Page 397 39 A. 606, 66 Am.St.Rep. 116. The importance of the finding that the owner did not part with title is obvious. If support for th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 191, 193, 110 A. 844; State v. Levine, 79 Conn. 714, 717, 66 A. 529, 10 L.R.A.,N.S., 286; State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398, 409, 39 A. 606. 'When a person by trick or fraud obtains possession of property, intending at the time of obtaining the property to convert i......
  • Cedar Rapids Nat. Bank v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., No. 35107.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 19, 1923
    ...a voluntary one, as the result of fear, induced by threats, it is a taking without the owner's consent, and a larceny. State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398, 39 Atl. 606, 66 Am. St. Rep. 116; 17 R. C. L. 18. In State v. Hall, 76 Iowa, 85, 87, 40 N. W. 107, 108 (14 Am. St. Rep. 204), we said: “If ......
  • Cedar Rapids National Bank v. American Surety Co. of New York, 35107
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • October 19, 1923
    ...a voluntary one, as the result of fear, induced by threats, it is a taking without the owner's consent, and a larceny. State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398; 17 Ruling Case Law 18, 39 A. 606. In State v. Hall, 76 Iowa 85, 87, 40 N.W. 107, we said: "If possession is obtained by a trick, artifice, ......
  • State v. Robington
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 25, 1950
    ...as well as possession, whatever other crime may have been committed, it will not be theft.' State v. Rapsey, supra; State v. Kallaher, 70 Conn. 398, 409, Page 397 39 A. 606, 66 Am.St.Rep. 116. The importance of the finding that the owner did not part with title is obvious. If support for th......
  • 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