Abbott v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 20 February 1900
• Citation: 107 Ky. 624
• Parties: Abbott v. Commonwealth.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

Page 624

107 Ky. 624

Abbott v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 20, 1900.

APPEAL FROM TRIMBLE CIRCUIT COURT.

J. W. McCAIN, C. D. TERRELL, W. F. AND D. H. PEAK AND JOHN D. CARROLL FOR THE APPELLANT.

CLIFTON J. PRATT, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, FOR APPELLEE.

JUDGE HOBSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

Appellant, Sam S. Abbott, was indicted in the Trimble Circuit Court for the murder of Thomas Craig; and having been found guilty of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at fifteen years in the penitentiary, he prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant is a bachelor, thirty-four years of age. He had several brothers and two sisters. The younger sister, named Huston, was seventeen years of age. Appellant was very fond of this sister. In the words of one of the witnesses: "He idolized her. There was nothing she wished for that he would not grant, and there was nothing too hard for him to do for her." He had clothed her, educated her, furnished her with money, and, when away at a distance, had been at pains to gather up presents or pictures for her. His other sister had married Will Craig, a brother of the deceased. Huston was at their house. The deceased, Thomas Craig, had for some time been paying her attention. Appellant lived with his father, W. R. Abbott, about a mile from Will Craig's house.

On Sunday morning, April 16th, of last year, very early, Thomas Craig came to W. R. Abbott's house and told Mrs. Abbott that Huston was very sick at her sister's, and he wanted her to go and bring the doctor. The father went for the doctor, and the mother went immediately to the daughter. Shortly after the mother reached her, and before the doctor arrived, she was delivered of a bastard child. According to the proof, her family had no intimation that she was in this condition until the birth of the child. Appellant knew nothing of it until he met the doctor returning from William Craig's house, and asked about his sister's condition. When told what had occurred, he was like a wild man. His brother gathered him in his arms and held him. That day he was grief-stricken, would not talk to anybody, looked like he was crazy. He wept a great deal; his eyes were red, ate nothing. All that night he was restless; turning, tossing, groaning, murmuring, calling his sister's name, and frequently getting up aimlessly and lying down again.

Sunday evening Thomas Craig and Huston were married by the county judge; but after the ceremony appellant was informed by his brother that Thomas Craig had said they could make him marry her, but that they could not make him live with her. The next morning his mother told his sister-in-law, in his presence, that Thomas Craig had drugged her daughter and thereby accomplished her ruin; that he said the child was not his, and that he was going away. Appellant then went out to the wood pile and lay down on a sled, remaining there some time, crying. He then undertook to dig some post holes, which had been laid off, and pegs driven at points where the holes were to be. He did not dig consecutively, but skipped about, and after working awhile, and without eating any breakfast or dinner, went to a store, not far off, and sat down on the porch. Soon after he sat there, Thomas Craig came up. Appellant said to him, with an oath: "You have ruined my sister. Leave here," and thereupon drew a pistol and shot Craig several times, killing him almost instantly.

After the shooting, a cousin of appellant's got to him as soon as he could and grabbed his pistol. Appellant then turned around to him, and stared at him hard, as though he did not know who had hold of him. Appellant had not seen Craig before that day, and there appears no reason for his expecting the meeting at the store. During the whole day appellant had been moody, saying but little, with tears in his eyes, and his voice such as to attract attention when he talked.

On these facts, which the testimony introduced by him fairly established, he asked the court to instruct the jury that, if he was of unsound mind at the time of the killing, they should acquit him. He also introduced several witnesses who knew him well, and had seen him that day, and offered to prove by them that he was then crazy; but the court refused to allow the witnesses to testify to their opinion as to his being of unsound mind, and also refused to give any instruction on the question of insanity, which was really the only defense relied on.

It is well settled in this State that persons who are not experts, but by association and observation have had an opportunity to form an opinion as to the sanity of the person, may testify to that opinion; giving, also, the facts upon which the opinion is based, so that the jury may judge for themselves what weight the opinion is entitled to. Insanity is often shown by a flash of the eye, an expression of the face, a movement of the muscles or a number of slight circumstances which,...