Case Name: The State of Connecticut against Bailey
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1834-06
Citations: 10 Conn. 144
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State of Connecticut against Bailey.
Judges: The other Judges were of the same opinion, except Peters, J., who was absent.
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 10
Pages: 144–146

Head Matter:
The State of Connecticut against Bailey.
A district school.honse is not an out-house within the 30th section of the act of 1830, concerning crimes and punishments.
This was an information against Henry Bailey, charging him with breaking and entering an out-house, in the town of Cornwall, wherein goods, wares and merchandize were deposited, in the night season, with an intention to commit theft therein.
On the trial, at Litchfield, August term, 1833, before Peters, J., the attorney for the state offered evidence to prove, that the building described in the information was occupied, at the time specified, as a school-house, for the purpose of teaching a district school therein ; that at evening, the school-house was locked up ; that there were deposited therein the books used by the scholars ; and that the prisoner, in the night season, broke and entered said school-house, with an intent to steal. The prisoner thereupon requested the court to instruct the jury, that if the facts were true, as claimed, by the prosecutor, such school-' house did not constitute an out-house within the meaning of the statute ; and consequently, they ought to acquit the prisoner. But the court instructed the jury, that said school-house was an out-house within the statute ; and if the facts were proved, they ought to find the prisoner guilty of the offence charged in the information.
The jury returned a verdict against the prisoner; and he moved for a new trial for a mis-direction.
T. Smith, in support of the motion,
contended, That this school-house, standing alone, in no way connected with or related to any mansion house, was not an out-house within the statute. Out-house is a relative term. It implies, ex vi termini, the existence of a principal building, to which it is ideally, if not locally, attached. Thus, a barn is an out-house, by reason of its subserviency to the mansion--house. The ~S~t ate v. Brooks, 4 Conn. Rep. 446. But a district school-. house is an isolated building, in every sense.
L. Church, contra,
insisted, That b~ the established construction of the term out-house in our penal statutes, a schoolhouse is embraced by that term. Thus, in The &ate v. O'Brien, 2 Root 516. the burning of a school-house was held to be arson within the statute then in force, under the idea of its being an out-house. "A school-house," say the court, "may be considered a most important out-house to all the inhabitants of the district." Its standing alone does not prevent its being an out-house; for that was the situation of the barn in Brooks's case. A school-house may, with much stricter propriety, be considered an out-house, than the cabin of a vessel can be termed a shop; and yet in The &ate v. Carrier, 5 Day 131. the cabin of a vessel was held to be a shop within the statute relating to burglary.
Litchfield,
June, 1834.

Opinion:
OnuRcu, J.
The prisoner was charged, by the information, with breaking and entering an out-house, wherein were deposited goods, wares and merchandize, in the night season, with an intent to steal, under the 30th section of the "Act concerning crimes and punishments." On trial, he was convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison, where he flow is.
The out-house mentioned and described in the information, was a district school-house, containing books and other articles commonly used in district schools.
In the case of The State v. O'Brien, 2 Root 516. it is said, that a school-house may come under the denomination of a dwelling-house or out-house; and it was in that case adjudged, that the felonious burning of such a building was arson. The doctrine of that case cannot be approved, without an entire disregard of an established principle of the law, that penal laws are to be construed strictly. Subsequently, at the revision of the statutes, and when the law punishing arson was re-enacted, schoolhouses were included in the enumeration of buildings in addition to out-houses,--a circumstance very clearly implying, that the legislature did not consider a school-house to be an outhouse, notwithetanding O'Brien's case.
An out house is a building appurtenant to some main building or mansion house ; and whether it be parcel of it or not, depends upon its particular location, or its connexion with such mansion house. It is plain, that a school-house is not of this description; and therefore, is not an out-house, in legal signification.
I would advise a new trial.
The other Judges were of the same opinion, except Peters, J., who was absent.
New trial to be granted.