State v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an information against Stewart, in two counts. In the first count, he was charged with having set fire to and burned a certain barn or out-house of Russel Dutton, in East-Haddam, being parcel of his mansion-house ; and in the second, with having set fire to and burned a certain barn, stable or outhouse, being the property of Russel Dutton, not being parcel of any dwelling-house.
Read the full summary
This was an information against Stewart, in two counts. In the first count, he was charged with having set fire to and burned a certain barn or out-house of Russel Dutton, in East-Haddam, being parcel of his mansion-house ; and in the second, with having set fire to and burned a certain barn, stable or outhouse, being the property of Russel Dutton, not being parcel of any dwelling-house. On the trial before Peters, J. at Haddam, August term 1824, it was proved, that the prisoner burned the barn of Russell Dutton, as alleged in the information ; and it was also proved, that this barn was…
1Opinion of the CourtBristol, J.
The offence described in the first count of the indictment, would have been arson at common law, and consequently, is the same offence under the 26th sect, of the statute concerning crimes and punishments. (2 Russel on Crimes, 1661. 916.) By reference to the above author it will be seen, that when a barn or out-house is parcel of a dwelling-house, the burning of such barn, constitutes arson ; and the rules for deciding whether an out-house is, or is not parcel of the mansion-house, are fully given. It is impossible to say, that a barn eighteen rods from the mansion-house, entirely…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Holland v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1914
- Hobbie v. VanceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974
- Hobbie v. VanceSupreme Court of Alabama · 1974