State v. Reynolds

• Decision Date: 20 July 1920
• Citation: 110 A. 844,95 Conn. 186
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. REYNOLDS et al.

110 A. 844

95 Conn. 186

STATE v. REYNOLDS et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 20, 1920

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Donald T. Warner Judge.

Catherine Reynolds and Julia Di Mock were convicted of theft of property of the value of $5,000, and appeal. No error.

The state claimed to have established these facts: the defendants are sisters of attractive appearance. For four years prior to the occurrences involved, Reynolds had been engaged in soliciting orders from house to house for toilet soap perfumery, and similar articles, and in making personal deliveries of the articles sold. Di Mock was a housewife, and they lived together. Some time in April, 1919, Reynolds made the acquaintance of one Julius Beaumont at his home in New Haven. Beaumont was a widower, 80 years old, fairly intelligent, and a man of considerable property, both real and personal. Reynolds on that occasion was accompanied by another woman, but she called again next morning alone, and in the course of conversation solicited and got from him a small sum of money for the alleged purpose of paying freight charges on a box of soap. Within a day or two thereafter Reynolds again called on Beaumont, this time with her sister, Di Mock, whom she introduced to him, and from that time the visits of both were frequent. Shortly before May 20, 1919, they told Beaumont that they owned a substantial interest in $9,400 worth of Liberty bonds for which they had subscribed, and on which subscription they still owed a large balance. They told him that they wanted money to pay up this balance, and asked his financial aid for that purpose, saying that, when the amount was paid, they would get the bonds, " divide them, and pay back with these Liberty bonds." They further said:

" That these bonds were in the possession of some woman who was near at hand; that it would take only about 10 minutes to go from his house there, pay them up, and return with the bonds; and that then he was to get his part of them and they would retain the rest, and, further, that he was to get his portion of the money back in these bonds."

Beaumont on three successive days, beginning May 20th, after the representations just referred to, borrowed from a New Haven bank sums on collateral as follows: May 20th, $700; May 20th, later in the day, $600; May 21st, $1,500; May 22d, $2,000. Within a half hour after the receipt of each of these sums in currency from the bank, Beaumont handed in each instance the amount so received to the defendants at his house. At some time during these days he also handed to them the sum of $200, which he had not borrowed from the bank. The entire amount so delivered by him to the defendants was $5,000. These moneys were so delivered to them " for the specific purpose and condition that they should be used to pay the amount due on these bonds, and that of these bonds an amount equivalent to the $5,000 delivered should be returned to him, or, failing that, that the $5,000 should be returned to him." After each delivery of money to them by Beaumont as before described, the defendants left him ostensibly to get the bonds, but invariably returned to state that they needed more money to complete their obligation to the holder of the bonds, and that they had underestimated the amount necessary for their purpose. They returned with the same story after departing with the last delivery of money on May 22d, amounting to $2,000, saying that they needed an additional sum to " complete their obligation to the holder of these bonds." Beaumont then refused to proceed further with the transaction. On this occasion one Thompson, a lawyer, and for many years Beaumont's neighbor and acquaintance, was present. In reply to his inquiries, the defendants said they did not have the bonds, and must have more money before they could get them; Di Mock saying they were " in the possession of a lady living nearby," and that $2,000 more were required to get them. Di Mock added almost immediately:

" We haven't got any money of Mr. Beaumont's or any Liberty bonds. All the money she has had has been about $200 from him."

No bonds were ever delivered to Beaumont by either of the defendants, nor did either ever return to him any part of the $5,000. the defendants claimed to have proved that no money was paid to Di Mock by Beaumont, and that none was ever given or delivered to Reynolds by him, except the sum of about $250, which he gave to her to purchase dresses for her contemplated marriage with him, and that at no time was the subject of Liberty bonds spoken of or considered between the defendants, or either of them, and Beaumont.

Upon the trial the defendant Di Mock testified on her own and her sister's behalf. She was asked upon cross-examination, " You were utterly unfamiliar with business matters, of course, weren't you?" and upon answering " Yes, sir," was further asked, " You never had any financial transactions of any size at any time about this time, had you?" An objection to this was overruled, and an exception noted. The witness, after first answering, " I don't know what he means," finally answered, " Yes, sir." The appeal assigns error in this ruling, and in certain portions of the court's charge to the jury, which are sufficiently referred to in the opinion. Error is also assigned of the court's denial of a motion to set aside the verdict, and the evidence has been certified as a part of the record.

By a proceeding under section 5836 of the General Statutes, the defendants made application in this court to rectify the appeal in certain particulars.

Charles Kleiner and Michael J. Quinn, both of New Haven, for appellants.

Arnon A. Alling, State's Atty., of New Haven, for the State.

CASE J.

The application to correct the appeal is without merit. It is an attempt to reframe in certain particulars the statement by the trial...