Norwich bulletin., 1915-05-31
DANIELSON AND PUTNAM NEWS
PUTNAM
Judge Greene's Finding in Celebrated
Deer Case of Torrey VS.. Crampton-
Not a Criminal Act to Have Carcass
of Deer in Ones Possession-No EV-
dence of Illegal Killing.

Judge Gardiner Greene of the supe-
rior court has handed down a. decision
sustaining tine demurrer of the plain
tiff in the case of Charles L. Torrey, a
Putnam lawyer, VS.. John NJ Cramp-
ton, state superintendent of fisheries
and game. The case arose over the
attempt of County Game Warden Ar
thur Day to arrest Mr.. Torrey for ha,v-
Ing in his possession the carcass of a
| deer which he found in the highway
and refusing to deliver it to the officer
| upon demand. Day telephoned Super
| intendent Champion at New Haven
| that Torrey had the carcass of a deer
in his possession illegally and Cramp
| ton told Day to arrest Torrey unless he
would give it up. A Scuff1e ensued,
| but the officer finally gave up the at
| tempt and left. Subsequently a re-
quest for a warrant of arrest was
made to Prosecuting Attorney Arthur
| S. Macdonald of Putnam, but he re-
fused, stating that as far as he could
ascertain no crime had been committed
| by Mr.. TorreY. Torrey brought suit
| asainst Mr.. Champion for damages.
Defendant demurrer The demurrer
| was overruled and he filed an answer.
| Plaintiff demurred to the answer and
| II is this demurrer that Judge Greene
| has sustained. The case has created
interest throughout the stateand in
| Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, and
/ Mr.. Torrey has received letters from
various places as to the outcome of the
ma tier. Judge Greene finds that it is
not criminal act to have the carcass
OF deer in ones possession, and in
| the decision the case is fully set forth.
| The decision is as follows:
The complaint alleges that the de-
| PENDANT ordered, directed and advised
| Day to assault the plaintiff, and forci-
| bly, take the plaintiffs body, and that
Day; under said order, committed as
| sault and battery upon the plaintiff.
| The answer, a second defense, says
/ that defendant was superintendent of
| fisheries and game, and that Day, as
| game warden, had power, without war
| rant, to arrest for violation of any law
| relating to fish and game; that Day
| telephoned defendant that plaintiff had
| in his possession the body of a deer in
violation Of the laws relating. to fish
| apd game, and had refused to deliver
| said body to said Day, and Day asked
defendants advice what to do; that
| defendant thereupon advised Day to
4 arrest plaintiff if he refused to give
up the body, and gave Day no other
| orders, directions or advice; that de-
| PENDANT has no knowledge whether or
not Day assaulted the plaintiff
Demurs on Three Grounds.
The plaintiff demurs to the second
| defense on three grounds: first, that
| Days communication to defendant did
| not state facts showing what violation
| of the fish and game laws had been
| committed, or that any had been COM
| mltted, or how plaintiff got the body
or why plaintiff might not lawfully
keep the BODY, or why he was bound
| to give it to Day on demand. The
| plaintiff says that, therefore defend
| ant was not justified in advising Day
to arrest the plaintiff, without q war
| rant, if the plaintiff did not surrender
| the carcass to said Day.
| The second ground is that the DOS
session of a carcass of a deer by plain
| tiff, coupled with Days statement that
| he possessed it in violation of the fish
and game laws, did not justify defend
| ant in advising Day to arrest plain
tiff if he would not surrender the car
| cass.
The third ground is that it is not
alleged and does not appear that plain
tiffs possession of the carcass was in
! violation of the fish and game laws OF
anywise unlawful, or that plaintiff had
| not right to retain the carcass
| against Days demand, and therefore
| defendant was not justified in advis-
ing Day to arrest plaintiff if plaintiff
| would not surrender the carcass.
The defendants advice to Day was
equivalent to an order. The superin-
| tendent appoints the game wardenS,
| and may remove them for cause. Acts
1918, chapter 22S, sectnions 3, 6.
Warden Followed Advice.
Under such a relation, game war
| den would naturally defer to and fol
| low the advice of the SUPERINTENDENT as
| to the performance of his duties. In
| this case, the game warden sought the
| superintendent advice as to what his
duty was, received the advice and fol-
| lowed it. The act was within the
| scope of the duties of both the de-
PENDANT and Day. The. arrest is really
the act of the defendant.
The defense suggests that, if he
| made an honest error, he should not
| b eheld responsible, and cites AIcVeig;h
VS.. Ripley, II Conn, 1877. This case
treats of judicial officers and has no
| bearing on the case of an executive
| officer. If the defendant has ordered
an unlawful arrest, he is responsible in
| damages.
The defendant says that he did not
| order an assault. A man is liable for
| the natural consequences of his acts.
| An officer ordered to make an arrest is
| ordered to use such violence as may
| be necessary to make it.
The situation as it appears on the
| p1eadings is that Day telephoned the
| defendant that plaintiff had a deer
carcass IN his possession contrary to
| the fish and game laws, and refused to
| surrender it to Day, and asked de-
| PENDANT what he should do. Defend
ant advised Day to arrest plaintiff if
| he refused to give up the carcass, and
gave no other orders, directions or adj
| vice.
Orders to Day.
The answer omits any allegation
| that plaintiff had a carcass in viola
| ton of the fish and game laws, or of
any law. The question is whether
defendant, upon being told by Day
| that plaintiff had carcass in viola
ton of the fish and game laws, was
| justified in causing his arrest. 1t is
| noticeable that defendant did not adj
| wise Day that, if the possession was
really in violation of the fish and game
| laws, he ought to arrest. The answer
is explicit in alleging that defendant
gave no orders. directions, or advice
to Day except 'if the plaintiff refused
to give up the body of said deer to
place him under arrest" This advice
is based merely on Days statement
over the telephone that plaintiff had
the body in violation of the fish and
game laws and refused to surrender
| it. The basis of the advice is not any
illegality in fact, but Days opinion
that there was iilegality in plaintiff s
| Withholding the body. There is no al
| legation in the answer as to how plain
tiff got the body. Nothing can be
presumed to help out the answer, as
| every nleadinp 70 ha construed