People v. Burgess

• Decision Date: 05 October 1897
• Citation: 47 N.E. 889,153 N.Y. 561
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BURGESS.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

153 N.Y. 561

47 N.E. 889

PEOPLE

v.BURGESS.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 5, 1897.

Appeal from supreme court, trial term, Cayuga county.

Charles Burgess was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Hull Greenfield and Harry T. Dayton, for appellant.

George W. Nellis, Dist. Atty., for the People.

HAIGHT, J.

Henry V. Whitlock was a farmer, 58 years of age, living in the town of Victory, in the county of Cayuga, with his wife, Catherine, who was about 37 years of age. The defendant, a strong, powerful man, of about the same age as Mrs. Whitlock, was in their employ as a hired man, working upon the farm. He lived with them, eating at the same table, and sleeping in a room upstairs, while Whitlock and his wife occupied a bedroom on the ground floor. The residence was upon the west side of a road running north and south, and the barns were upon the east side of the roadway. There was a field of growing corn about 15 rods north of the barn, and in the fence between the cornfield and the road were bars across the passageway from the road to the field. On the 6th day of August, 1895, Whitlock and the defendant had been engaged in harvesting oats. After supper the defendant took the horses to the pasture, some distance from the house, and Whitlock separated the young cattle from the milch cows, putting the young cattle in the pasture, and retaining the milch cows in the lane. He fed them some sowed corn, after which he went into the house, removed his boots, and sat down with his wife in the dining room. After a while the defendant passed through the room, on his way to his bedroom, stopping to look at a pair of gloves at the request of Whitlock, which his wife had cleaned for him that day. Shortly after the defendant had passed to his room, Whitlock and his wife retired, and went to sleep. At about 10 o'clock, or shortly thereafter, they were awakened by the defendant, from the outside of their bedroom window, which was at the time open, having a screen in it, calling to Whitlock, saying, ‘Henry, there is a couple of cows in the corn.’ Whitlock and his wife at once arose, Mrs. Whitlock lighting a lamp, while he put on his clothes, lighted a lantern, and started out, she returning to her bed. In the roadway they were met by a neighbor, who saluted the defendant, who was in advance of Whitlock, with the word ‘Hello,’ and passed on, the defendant replying with the same expression. Mrs. Whitlock remained lying upon the bed, watching the light of the lamp, which was in the dining room. Within a very few minutes after her husband had left the house, the light suddenly went out, leaving the house in darkness. Hearing no noise, and thinking that her husband had left the door open, and that the light had been extinguished by a gust of wind, she arose, passed through the doorway of her bedroom, and was at once seized by the defendant, who had returned to the house, and devested himself of his clothing, with the exception of his shirt. She screamed, and he asked her what was the matter. She, recognizing his voice, said, ‘How you scared me.’ He then had his hands on her shoulders, pushing her backward toward the bed. She then asked him what he was trying to do, and he replied, telling her his purpose, and remarked, ‘I have been crazy over you all summer.’ A violent struggle then ensued, in which he forced her back upon the bed, placed his hand over her mouth, choked her into insensibility, and criminally assaulted her. During the progress of the struggle, she slipped his hand from her mouth, and called for Henry, her husband. The defendant then said that ‘he had killed him, and that he was going to kill himself; but if she would lie still, and let him, he would spare her.’ A second time she succeeded in getting his hand from her mouth and screamed, ‘Henry!’ He then told her if she screamed again, he would kill her. He then choked her so violently that she lost consciousness. On her recovering consciousness, the defendant was standing upon the floor in front of the bed. She made a spring to get up, but the defendant caught her, and again pushed her back on the bed, threw himself on her, and again attempted to assault her. He arose, and sat up on the edge of the bed. She again attempted to arise; but he caught hold of her, and held her around the body, on the edge of the bed. She asked him to let her go, to which he replied: ‘What did I kill Henry for? He has always been a good friend to me, and there is nothing left for me but the chair.’ She then begged him to let her go just to the door to get a breath; that she was choking. He led her to the door, which was open, but which had a screen door hooked on the inside. As she got near the door she made a desperate effort to get away from him, but he held her, and pushed her back into the bedroom again. He sat down upon the edge of the bed while holding her, and again said, ‘What did I kill Henry for?’ She replied: ‘But maybe you haven't killed him. Let me go and see. Maybe I can do something for him.’ He then said: ‘There is no use. When he bent down to go under the bars, I struck him on the head with the axe, and threw him over the fence.’ She finally prevailed upon him to leave, and when he had done so she slipped a wrapper over her nightdress, pulled on her shoes without stockings, and ran to her neighbors for help. The examination which was made by the neighbors shortly afterwards disclosed the body of Whitlock lying inside of the barway by the side of the fence. It lay upon its back, legs and arms out straight, with an axe and hat but a few feet away. In the back of the head was a deep gash, penetrating through the skull and brain. There was a pool of blood under the bars, and they were spattered with blood and brain tissue. The upper and lower bars were in place. The central bar was broken down in the center. The ground descended towards the roadway, and blood had run down the wheel tracks into the roadway, doubtless washed there by the rain which had fallen during the intervening time. An examination of the cornfield showed that no cows had been in the corn. About nine days before the homicide, the defendant, in conversation with a neighbor by the name of Secor, and in the presence of his brother-in-law, Walker, spoke of his liking Mr. and Mrs. Whitlock very much, and said that he ‘would like to sleep with her one night, and if I could I would be willing to roll in my grave.’ After leaving Mrs. Whitlock on the night of the homicide, the defendant went to the barn of an acquaintance for whom he had formerly worked, buried himself in the haymow, and there remained until the evening of the 8th, when he made his presence known, seeking food and water; and he was shortly thereafter placed under arrest.

We have thus given a brief summary of the evidence produced in behalf of the people, none of which is controverted. It amply justifies the finding that the defendant lured the deceased from his bedchamber under the false pretense that the cows were in the corn; that he proceeded in advance of him through the barway where the central bar was broken, and where it was necessary to stoop in order to pass between the upper and the lower bars; that there, with an ax secured for the purpose, he struck the fatal blow as Whitlock was bending his head under the bar. That this act was done with deliberation and premeditation there is no room for doubt. That it was done for the purpose of gaining possession of Mrs. Whitlock is also evident. The defense interposed was that of insanity. It is claimed that he was suffering from the disease known as ‘larval epilepsy.’ The evidence tends to show that in his boyhood days he was rather quiet and retiring, caring but little for the company of other boys, and frequently refusing to join with them in their plays; but he would occasionally join them, at which times he would play with great vigor, and with some harshness. From early infancy he appears to have been troubled with walking and talking in his sleep, from which he would awake uttering a sudden scream.Atother times he would walk or run about the house, screeching or mumbling to himself, with staring eyes. For a number of years he lived with his grandparents, who on such occasions often aroused him by the application of cold water. At times his limbs and body would twitch and tremble. He had seasons of depression, when he would sit for hours holding his head upon his hands, heedless of the conversation addressed to him. He occasionally had headaches, and at one time was caught in the act of self-abuse. When between nine and ten years of age he was struck a blow on the head with a hammer by his little brother, who was four or five years of age. Later on he fell from a horse, striking on his head and shoulders, which rendered him unconscious for a time. When 12 years of age, he arose one night, hitched a horse to his grandfather's sleigh, and drove to his mother's, about four miles away, where he arrived about 4 o'clock in the morning. He hallooed, and awakened his mother. She called him to come in, but he remained sitting in the sleigh until she went out, shook him, and brought him in. He had on his trousers, his grandfather's boots, his grandfather's overcoat, and one mitten. He was nearly frozen, and was so wild and excited after he was taken into the house that a physician was sent for. Whether he had been asleep during the entire journey, or how long he had remained in that condition, does not clearly appear from the narration of the event given by his mother. It does, however, appear that he afterwards had no recollection of this transaction. In his early manhood he worked upon the cannal, about railroads, and for five years served in the regular army as a soldier. In 1887 he was married, and lived with his wife several years. She then left him, as she alleges, because of his conduct towards her, and because of her belief that he was not sane. It...