Outhouse

A building adjoining or belonging to a dwelling-house; a building subservient to, yet distinct from, the principal mansion-house, located either within or without the curtilage.

Bouvier.

Any house necessary for the purposes of life, in which the owner does not make his constant or principal residence, is an outhouse.

State V. O'Brien, 2 Root, 616.

A barn not connected with the mansionhouse, but standing alone several rods distant therefrom, is an out-house.

State v. Brooks, 4 Conn. 446.

By the phrase, out-house where people resort, in the act to suppress gaming, is meant any house standing out and apart from houses used as dwellings or business houses.

Wheelock v. State, 15 Tex. 260.

An " out-house where people resort," to be within the purview of the statute against gaming, must be one to which people have resorted on more than one occasion, or one where more persons than those actually engaged in gaming are assembled on the particular occasion when the offence is charged to have been committed.

State v. Norton, 19 Tex. 102.

An open shed in a farm-yard, composed of upright posts supporting pieces of wood laid across them, and covered with straw as a roof, is an out-house, witliin 7 & 8 Geo. IV. ch.

30, § 2. Rex v. Stallion, 1 Moody, 398.

A building separated from the house by a passage, used as a school-room, but within the curtilage, is an out-house, within 9 Geo. I. ch. 22, § 1, although not of the ordinary description of out-houses.

Rex v. Winter, Russ. ^ B. 295.

An open building in a field at a distance from and out of sight of the owner's house, though boarded round and covered in, is not an out-house, within 7 & 8 Geo. IV. ch.

30, § 2. Rex 0. Ellison, 1 Mood;/, 336.

A cart-hovel, consisting of a stubble roof supported by uprights, in a field at a distance from other buildings, is not an outhouse, within 7 & 8 Geo. IV. ch.

30, § 2. Rex V. Parrott, 6 Car. ^ P. 402.

A was indicted for setting fire to an outhouse. The building set on fire was a thatched pigsty, situate in a yard in the possession of the prosecutor, into whicli yard the back-door of his house opened, and which yard was bounded by fences and by other buildings of the prosecutor, and by a cottage and barn which were let to him by a tenant, but which did not open into this yard. It was held that this pigsty was an out-house, within 7 Wm. IV. & 1 Vict. ch.

89, § 3. Reg.;;. Jones, 1 Car. ^ K. 303; 2 Moody, 308.

Setting fire to paper only, in a dryingloft belonging to a paper-mill, no part of which was burned, is not setting fire to an A first count charged the firing of a certain building, used by 0 for carrying on his trade as a builder; and other counts laid the arson as of a stable, an out-house, and a stack of haulm. It was proved that some haulm had been carted from a field and stacked in a building originally intended for a stable, but afterwards divided into three parts of a wall, which reached only to the eaves. One part was used as a stable, and the part fired contained the haulm and a lot of tiles of the prosecutor, who was a builder. The fire had been kindled on the haulm. It was held that the building was improperly described as an out-house, a shed, or a stable.

Reg. v. Munson, 2 Cox Cr., Cos. 186.

A building had been built for an oven to bake bricks, but afterwards was roofed and a door put to it. In this place the prosecutor kept a cow; adjoining to it, but not under the same roof, was a lean-to, in which another person kept a horse. Neither the prosecutor nor the person of whom he rented this building had any house or farm-yard near it, nor did any wall connect it with any dwelling-house; the nearest dwelling being one hundred yards off, and not belonging to either the-prosecutor or his landlord. It was held that the building was neither a stable nor an out-house, and that, if a person set it on fire (the lean-to not being burned), he was not indicts able for arson.

Rex v. Haughton, 5 Car. Sr P. 555.