State v. Sawyer

CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCASE, J.
Citation110 A. 461,95 Conn. 34
PartiesSTATE v. SAWYER.
Decision Date10 June 1920

110 A. 461

95 Conn. 34

STATE
v.
SAWYER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1920


Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New London County; Charles B. Waller, Judge.

Julia Sawyer was convicted of theft, and she appeals. Error, judgment set aside, and cause remanded.

The appeal assigns error in the admission of certain testimony, in portions of the charge to the jury, and in the court's denial of a motion to set aside the verdict as against the evidence, which is made a part of the record.

Clayton B. Smith, of New London, and Charles L. Stewart, of Norwich, for appellant.

Charles B. Whittlesey, Pros. Atty., of New London, for the State. [110 A. 462]

CASE, J.

There was little dispute as to the facts, and none at all as to any which affect the ultimate and decisive matter of intent. Making allowance, however, for certain unimportant differences in the testimony, the jury were warranted in finding no facts less favorable to the defendant than these:

The defendant owned and personally managed a lodging house in New London, where one Beatrice Burton, a girl employed during the day in a local drug store, engaged and occupied a room, paying a week's rent in advance and bringing with her a hand bag containing certain of her possessions. Two or three days after this tenancy began, the girl accidentally spilled or spattered on the wall paper and woodwork of her room some liquid dye known as " colorite." She said nothing of this to the defendant, who next day discovered the stains in her absence and removed from the room the bed clothing and the hand bag with its contents, leaving a note for her lodger which called attention to the stained condition of the wall and woodwork, and demanded $5 as payment for the damage so [95 Conn. 36] caused. Miss Burton found the note upon her return from work that evening and at once sought out the defendant, who freely admitted having taken away the missing articles and declined to give up the girl's property until reparation had been made for the damage which she acknowledged having caused to the room. It was thereupon agreed and understood between them that Miss Burton should pay the defendant $5 within a day or two thereafter in full satisfaction for the damage she had done, and the defendant then returned the bed clothing to the room, but still declined to restore the hand bag and its contents until the promised payment should be made. Miss Burton remained in the house that night, but, without again seeing or communicating any change of mind or purpose to the defendant, she concluded next day not to make the payment as agreed, and vacated the room. She then went with her story to an attorney, who called upon the defendant and demanded the return of her property, but the defendant, who then first learned of the girl's change of intention, refused to surrender it until the $5 should be paid to her as promised.

The simpler...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State v. Smith, No. 19314.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 30, 2015
    ...of collecting debt does not constitute robbery). It would appear that this court previously has held to the contrary. See State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 39, 110 A. 461 (1920) (“one who takes another's goods to compel him, though in an irregular way, to do what the law requires him to do with......
  • State v. Caballero, 16007
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • July 21, 1998
    ...owner, but to compel him to do what the law requires, is not a thief, whatever the extent of the wrong viewed otherwise. State v. Sawyer, [95 Conn. 34, 39, 110 A. 461 (1920)]." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Varszegi, 33 Conn. App. 368, 373-7......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...the owner of it permanently; and (3) the lack of the consent of the owner. State v. Main, 75 Conn. 55, 59, 52 A. 257; State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 36, 110 A. 461, 13 A.L.R. 139; 2 Swift's Digest 309; 2 Wharton, Criminal Law (12th Ed.) § 1097; 1 Bishop, Criminal Law (9th Ed.) § 566; 32 Am.J......
  • State v. Smith, SC 19314
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 30, 2015
    ...of collecting debt does not constitute robbery). It would appear that this court previously has held to the contrary. See State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 39, 110 A. 461 (1920) ("one who takes another's goods to compel him, though in an irregular way, to do what the law requires him to do with......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State v. Smith, No. 19314.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 30, 2015
    ...of collecting debt does not constitute robbery). It would appear that this court previously has held to the contrary. See State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 39, 110 A. 461 (1920) (“one who takes another's goods to compel him, though in an irregular way, to do what the law requires him to do with......
  • State v. Caballero, 16007
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • July 21, 1998
    ...owner, but to compel him to do what the law requires, is not a thief, whatever the extent of the wrong viewed otherwise. State v. Sawyer, [95 Conn. 34, 39, 110 A. 461 (1920)]." (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Varszegi, 33 Conn. App. 368, 373-7......
  • State v. Vars
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 29, 1966
    ...the owner of it permanently; and (3) the lack of the consent of the owner. State v. Main, 75 Conn. 55, 59, 52 A. 257; State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 36, 110 A. 461, 13 A.L.R. 139; 2 Swift's Digest 309; 2 Wharton, Criminal Law (12th Ed.) § 1097; 1 Bishop, Criminal Law (9th Ed.) § 566; 32 Am.J......
  • State v. Smith, SC 19314
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 30, 2015
    ...of collecting debt does not constitute robbery). It would appear that this court previously has held to the contrary. See State v. Sawyer, 95 Conn. 34, 39, 110 A. 461 (1920) ("one who takes another's goods to compel him, though in an irregular way, to do what the law requires him to do with......
  • 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