The Newtown bee., 1891-04-10
THE STATE VS.. GEOR

THE STATE VS.. GEORGE H. TURNER.
Supreme Court of Errors, Fairfield County,
January Term, 1891, Opinion of the Court,
Andrews c. j.
The defendant was prosecuted before JUS
tice of the peace in the town of NewtOWn up
on a grand jurors complaint, charging that
con the fourth day of April, 1891, at said New
town, the defendant with force and arms did
enter upon the enlOSed lands of John B. Peck
and 6ai near the Deem He HooW bridge over the
said Potatuck brook so called, in said town,
without the permission OF said Peek, for the
purpose of fishing in said POtatuck brook,
which flows on the land of said Peck at that
point; against the peace and contrary to the
statute in such case made and provided;
and was convicted. Section 1854 of the gener-
al statutes, upon which the complaint was
brought, so far as it relates to fishing, is that,
the enclosed land of another without the
permission OF the owner, occupant or person
in charge thereof, for the purpose OF hunting,
trapping or fishing, taking or destroying the
nests of birds, or gathering nuts, fruits or
berries, shall be fined" etc.
The defendant appealed from the justice
court to the Grim nal court OF Common Pleas
in Fairfield county and was there tried upon
the same complaint and on his plea of not
guilty, by jury, and was again found guilty,
and was sentenced to pay fine. He now
appeals to this court Upon the trial before
the jury, the defendant offered evidence tend
ing to show that the complaint was not
brought and prosecuted at the request of the
owner OF the land over which said brook
flows, and claimed that there could be no
conviction under the statute unless the pro-
the owner OF the land This evidence was right
1yruled out The authority of grand juror to
prosecute for crime is fixed by law. 1t is not
controlled or limited by the wishes of any
person. who may have been affected by the
crime.
The evidence offered by the defendant in
respect to signs on land adjoining the land of
Mr. Peck lin respect to the putting OF trout fry
into the brook and that in respect to the Rod
and Reel club, was properly excluded. 1t was
all immaterial. 1t did not prove or disprove
any material tact. 1t did not prove or tend to
closed land of another for the purpose of fish
ing, without having the consent of the owner.
The real question in the case arises under the
defendants fifth and sixth reasons OF appeal.
The defendant had claimed that he had the
right to show that he did not knowingly and
nnlawtully enter upon the land OF Mr.
Peck, for the purpose OF fishing, and that if he
had made any such entry it was by accident
and mistake, and that, therefore, he could not
Upon this part of the case,the court charged
the jury as follows: 81 believe that the rule is
imposed by law, or the punishment prescrib-
ed, depends upon an act being done with
knowledge or with evil intent there must be
evidence of such knowledge or intent as OF
the intention to do the act, in order to convict
But do not interpret this statute as contain
ing such prohibition, or that the punish.
ment prescribed depends upon the act being
done with knowledge or with evil intent. In
regard to the allegation under consideration
it seems to the court sufficient for the Jury to
inquire, Did the accused intend to do the
thing he did and was that thing a violation OF
the law! Did the accused go upon this partic
ular piece of land, 1t being the land of anot1
Ell, namely,John B. Peck without permission,
for The purpose OF fishing2 f he did, it is i'm
material, in the opinion of the court, whether
he knew the owners name at the time or not
This principle is now, / believe, well settled
made by some law writer's that there is nc
crime without criminal intent should certain
4 y be modified to this extent" The question
here presented is not a new one in this State
It has recently been before this court and was
decided in accordance with the instructions