State v. Fairclough
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Information for larceny. The defendants, husband and wife, were requested by one Goodsell, of Woodbridge, in New Haven county, by whose house they were passing in a wagon on their way to New Haven, to carry to New Haven a box containing jewelry and other valuables, and deliver the same at a certain jewelry store there.
Read the full summary
Information for larceny. The defendants, husband and wife, were requested by one Goodsell, of Woodbridge, in New Haven county, by whose house they were passing in a wagon on their way to New Haven, to carry to New Haven a box containing jewelry and other valuables, and deliver the same at a certain jewelry store there. They had been left at the house of Goodsell by a Mrs. Comer, the owner, who had requested that they should be forwarded to her at the place named in New Haven. The box was wrapped in paper and tied up with twine. The defendants took it and agreed to deliver it as requested, but…
1Opinion of the CourtStorrs, C. J.
The defendants in this case were plainly either the servants or bailees of the owner of the goods alleged to have been stolen, but which of these relations they sustained to him it is unnecessary to consider, because, whichever it was, the charge of the court below was, in our opinion, correct.
If they were only his servants, it is well settled, and indeed is admitted, that they had no property in the goods, and that \ the possession of them, by their delivery to the defendants, *49was not in law changed, but remained as before in the owner, the possession of a servant in such á case being the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. RuffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. LevineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1907