State v. White

Decision Date26 January 1905
Citation77 Vt. 241,59 A. 829
CourtVermont Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. WHITE.

Exceptions from Washington County Court; Stafford, Judge.

Henry M. White was convicted of larceny, and he brings exceptions. Sustained.

Argued before TYLER, MUNSON, START, WATSON, HASELTON, and POWERS, JJ.

John H. Senter, State's Atty., for the State.

Gordan & Jackson, for respondent.

POWERS, J. The respondent was convicted of the larceny of a team which he had hired at Fairlee, Vt, and which he left at Franklin, N. H., after he had used it a part of the time covered by the contract of bailment. The state claimed that he obtained possession of the property with felonious intent. This the respondent denied, and he claimed that the hiring and use of the team were bona tide. The respondent offered to show that while the property was in his possession at Hill, N. H., and before he knew that any suspicion attached to him or that any search had been instituted, he stated that the team was not his own, but was a hired team. This evidence was rejected, and we are called upon to determine its admissibility. It is impossible to reconcile the conflicting decisions upon the question here presented. Authorities are not wanting which sustain the action of the trial court in excluding this evidence. Thus in State v. Waters, 139 Mo. 539, 41 S. W. 221, it was held that a respondent charged with stealing a horse, the taking of which he admitted, was not entitled to show that while the horse was in his peaceable possession he told another that it did not belong to him; the decision being put upon the ground that the statement was too remote in point of time from the original act of taking the horse. To the same effect are State v. Pettis, 63 Me. 124, and other cases. On the contrary, Baron Alderson charged the jury in Reg. v. Abraham, 61 E. C. L. 550, that if it had appeared that, before suspicion attached on the prisoner, he had given this account of his possession of the property to his neighbors, the property being there at the time and before search made, he had not the slightest doubt that, valeat quantum, this would have been very competent evidence for the prisoner, and this doctrine has been affirmed in several subsequent English cases, and this very language is quoted with approval by Judge Taft in State v. Daley, cited below. In State v. Young, 41 La. Ann. 94, 6 South. 468, the respondent offered to show that at the time of and prior to her arrest she showed the article alleged to have been stolen, told to whom it belonged, and that she took it by mistake. The exclusion of this evidence was held to be error. Smith v. State, 103 Ala. 40, 16 South. 12, is to the same effect; and so are Payne v. State, 57 Miss. 348, Com. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Teitle
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1952
    ...exception. In an attempt by analogy to get without the res gestae rule as applied in State v. Daley, 53 Vt. 442, 444, and State v. White, 77 Vt. 241, 242, 59 A. 829, the respondent here argues that the offered evidence was not subject to the objection that it was self-serving, because at th......
  • State v. Kamuda
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1925
    ...such use of declarations. In addition to those cases, the same doctrine is expressly ruled in the more recent case of State v. White, 77 Vt. 241, 59 A. 829, 2 Ann. Cas. 302. We see no reason for departing from the holdings in such respect in our From what we have said concerning the presump......
  • State v. John Kamuda
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1925
    ... ... the courts in different states are there noticed, and he ... refers to the two decisions cited above from this Court as ... sanctioning such use of declarations. In addition to those ... cases the same doctrine is expressly ruled in the more recent ... case of State v. White, 77 Vt. 241, 59 A ... 829, 2 Ann. Cas. 302. We see no reason for departing from the ... holdings in such respect in our cases ...           From ... what we have said concerning the presumption of ownership of ... the store being in the respondent, consequent on his ... possession ... ...
  • State v. Fairbanks
    • United States
    • Vermont Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1929
    ...Vt. 259, 266, 136 A. 835; State v. Bean, 77 Vt. 384, 392, 60 A. 807; State v. Kamuda, 98 Vt. 466, 474, 129 A. 306; State v. White, 77 Vt. 241, 59 A. 829, 2 Ann. Cas. 302; Jewett v. Buck, 78 Vt. 353, 356, 63 A. 136; State v. Mahon, 32 Vt. 241, 244. The fact that part of the conversation not ......
  • 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