55 S.W. 76 (Mo. 1900), The State v. Sumpter

• Citation: 55 S.W. 76,153 Mo. 436
• Date: 23 January 1900
• Docket Number: .
• Parties: THE STATE v. SUMPTER, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 76

55 S.W. 76 (Mo. 1900)

153 Mo. 436

THE STATE

v.

SUMPTER, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

January 23, 1900

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court. -- Hon. John. A. Hockaday, Judge.

Affirmed.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

(1) The verdict of the jury is according to the law and the evidence. There being no error committed in the trial of the case and the jury being the sole judge of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the court will not interfere with their verdict. State v. Moxley, 115 Mo. 644; State v. Cook, 58 Mo. 548; State v. Musick, 71 Mo. 401. (2) A party to a suit can not be deprived of a witness's testimony because that witness has violated the order of the court that the witnesses shall be kept so that they will not hear each other testify. McLean v. State, 116 Ala. 672; O'Bryan v. Allen, 95 Mo. 68. (3) The court properly refused to give an instruction in this case for manslaughter in the fourth degree. State v. Renfrow, 111 Mo. 589; State v. Dunn, 18 Mo. 419; State v. Johnson, 76 Mo. 127; State v. Lane, 64 Mo. 319; State v. Brady, 87 Mo. 142; State v. Smith, 114 Mo. 406.

OPINION

Page 77

[153 Mo. 437] SHERWOOD, J.

Jode Sumpter, the defendant, was indicted for murder in the first degree, by shooting to death with a pistol, Eli Hursman.

The circumstances attendant on the sad affair are sufficiently set forth in the statement made on behalf of the State:

Eli Hursman, was a farmer living in Howard county, this State. His family consisted of himself, his wife, several daughters and sons. The defendant had, for some time past, been working for him, with the exception of three weeks immediately prior to the homicide. He was exceedingly intimate with the family of Hursman and always alluded to him as "Daddy" when talking of or concerning him. For some time past, it appears, he had been paying attention to one of the daughters of the deceased, which did not meet with Hursman's approbation. On this account he was discharged from the employment [153 Mo. 438] of Hursman and commenced working for a neighbor near by. On Sunday morning of the eighth day of May, Hursman with his family attended church at New Hope not far distant from his residence, defendant following on horseback. On arriving at the church defendant accompanied Hursman's daughter into the building, where they remained until after services. He was requested by the mother of the young lady not to do so, as it would cause trouble between him and her husband; besides, the young lady, knowing that her father did not desire her to associate herself with defendant, made herself liable to chastisement by him. On the road home,...