Bass v. State

• Citation: 36 N.E. 124, 136 Ind. 165
• Case Date: January 10, 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

136 Ind. 165
36 N.E. 124

BASS
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 10, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Lawrence county; R. W. Miers, Judge.

Curtis Bass was convicted of assault and battery with intent to murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

M. F. Dunn, for appellant. A. G. Smith and S. B. Lowe, for the State.

COFFEY, J.

At the September term, 1891, of the Lawrence circuit court, the grand jury of that county returned an indictment against the appellant, Curtis Bass, charging him with an assault and battery upon one William H. Tow, with the intent to commit the crime of murder. A trial of the cause by jury resulted in a verdict finding the appellant guilty as charged, upon which verdict the court, over a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment. To reverse the judgment thus rendered, this appeal is prosecuted.

The indictment charges that: “Curt. Bass, late of said county, on the 21st day of August, A. D. 1891, at said county and state aforesaid, did then and there, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice, and in a rude, insolent, and angry manner, touch, bruise, lacerate, and wound the body and person of William H. Tow, by then and there, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditation, shooting off and discharging at and against the said Tow a certain shotgun then and there loaded with gunpowder and leaden shot and slugs, with the intent, then and there and thereby, him, the said Tow, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice, to kill and murder.” This, we think, is a good indictment for assault and battery with intent to commit the crime of murder in the first degree, and for this reason the circuit court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion in arrest of judgment, based upon the insufficiency of the indictment.

The evidence tends to support the verdict of the jury, and for this reason we are not at liberty to disturb it on the claim made by the appellant that his motion for a new trial should have been sustained for want of evidence to support the verdict.

This case was tried twice in the Lawrence circuit court, the jury having failed to agree upon a verdict at the first trial. At the first trial, D. O. Spencer acted as the official reporter, and took down in shorthand the evidence of the injured party, William H. Tow. Subsequently, with the assistance of his daughter, Mr. Spencer made a typewritten transcript of this evidence, compared it with his shorthand notes, and was able to and did testify that the typewritten transcript was correct. Between the date of the first and second trial of the cause, Tow departed this life, and upon proof of that fact the circuit court permitted Spencer to read to the jury from the typewritten transcript certain portions of the evidence of Tow on the former trial of the cause, to which action and ruling of the court the appellant excepted. Numerous objections to this ruling are ably urged in this court by the appellant's learned counsel. It is contended: First, that the witness can only use the notes made at the former trial of the cause for the purpose of refreshing his memory, and that after his memory is thus refreshed he must be able to state from his recollection what the deceased witness testified on the former trial; second, that, the typewritten transcript not being a paper prepared at the time of the former trial, the witness had no right to refer to it for the purpose of refreshing his recollection; third, that the whole testimony of the deceased witness should have been read to the jury, if any was admissible, and that it was error to permit a part only to be read; fourth, that the fact that a former trial of the cause had taken place should have been proved by the record,...