State v. Reynolds

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtCASE, J.
Citation110 A. 844,95 Conn. 186
PartiesSTATE v. REYNOLDS et al.
Decision Date20 July 1920

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 [95 Conn. 188] 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 [110 A. 845] 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 [95 Conn. 189] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...540, 542, 162 A. 262; State v. Fenn, 41 Conn. 590, 605.' State v. Robington, 137 Conn. 140, 143, 75 A.2d 394, 396; see State 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. ......
  • State v. Robington
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 25, 1950
    ...Sales, Inc., did not prejudice the defendant. Practice Book, § 309(d). The court's conclusion of guilt was justified. State v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 193, 110 A. Error is assigned in the admission of an exemplified copy of a record showing the defendant's conviction of a felony in 1939. Th......
  • State v. Kelly
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 1, 1924
    ...70 A. 1043; Griswold et al. v. Guilford, 75 Conn. 192, 196, 52 A. 742; Sansona v. Laraia, 88 Conn. 136, 137, 90 A. 28; State v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 190, 110 A. 844; Hartford-Conn. Trust Co. v. Cambell, supra; State v. Klein, supra. The remedy attempted to be pursued by the accused was t......
  • Marks v. Dorkin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 3, 1926
    ...each party, and "made with sufficient fullness to present the questions sought to be raised by the appeal." State v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 190, 110 A. 844; Sansona v. Lararia, 88 Conn. 136, 90 A. 28; State v. Gargano, 99 Conn. 103, 106, 121 A. 657; Elliott v. New York, N. H. &am......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...540, 542, 162 A. 262; State v. Fenn, 41 Conn. 590, 605.' State v. Robington, 137 Conn. 140, 143, 75 A.2d 394, 396; see State 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. ......
  • State v. Robington
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 25, 1950
    ...Sales, Inc., did not prejudice the defendant. Practice Book, § 309(d). The court's conclusion of guilt was justified. State v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 193, 110 A. Error is assigned in the admission of an exemplified copy of a record showing the defendant's conviction of a felony in 1939. Th......
  • State v. Kelly
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 1, 1924
    ...70 A. 1043; Griswold et al. v. Guilford, 75 Conn. 192, 196, 52 A. 742; Sansona v. Laraia, 88 Conn. 136, 137, 90 A. 28; State v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 190, 110 A. 844; Hartford-Conn. Trust Co. v. Cambell, supra; State v. Klein, supra. The remedy attempted to be pursued by the accused was t......
  • Marks v. Dorkin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 3, 1926
    ...each party, and "made with sufficient fullness to present the questions sought to be raised by the appeal." State v. Reynolds, 95 Conn. 186, 190, 110 A. 844; Sansona v. Lararia, 88 Conn. 136, 90 A. 28; State v. Gargano, 99 Conn. 103, 106, 121 A. 657; Elliott v. New York, N. H. &am......
  • 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