Bell v. State

• Decision Date: 21 October 1907
• Citation: 104 S.W. 1108
• Parties: BELL v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

104 S.W. 1108

BELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

October 21, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sevier County; James S. Steel, Judge.

J. R. Bell was convicted of murder in the second decree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Will Steel, Nichols & Steel, and W. H. Collins, for appellant. Wm. F. Kirby, Atty. Gen., and Dan. Taylor, for the State.

McCULLOCH, J.

Appellant, J. R. Bell, appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of murder in the second degree, his punishment having been fixed by the jury at seven years' confinement in the penitentiary.

The indictment (omitting caption and formal part) is as follows: "The said defendant, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 20th day of January, 1907, unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder one J. E. Britt by then and there shooting him, the said J. E. Britt, with a pistol loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, and then and there held in the hands of him the said J. R. Bell, and from the effects of the wound then and there so inflicted the said T. J. Britt did then and there die, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas." The defendant filed a demurrer, and also a motion to quash the indictment, on the ground that the several allegations were at variance; it being charged therein that "E. J. Britt" was shot by the defendant and that "T. J. Britt" died from the effects of the wounds. This was a clerical error in the preparation of the indictment and the court properly disregarded it.

Error of the court is assigned in refusing to permit the defendant to prove an alleged statement made by Britt to one Hudson that: "You [Hudson] ought to stand up for your rights. People beat you out of a whole lot." The killing occurred at Britt's house. He was the tenant of Hudson, and Tom Bell, appellant's father, had been one of Hudson's tenants the previous year. Tom Bell owed Hudson a balance on rent, and left a lot of corn with the latter to be held until this rent should be paid. Hudson left the corn in Britt's charge, and instructed him not to allow the corn to be taken away without an order from him. He also promised to sell the corn to Britt if Bell did not pay the balance on rent and take it back. Subsequently Bell and Hudson made a settlement, and Hudson gave Bell an order for the corn. Bell and his son, the appellant, went to Britt's house to get the corn, and the killing occurred there. Bell failed to present the order given him by Hudson, and Britt refused to allow the corn to be taken. Appellant said to his father: "Why don't you go and get the corn?" Britt then said to appellant: "Why don't you get it?" A controversy was thus provoked between appellant and Britt, and appellant drew a pistol from his bosom and shot Britt; they having in the meantime advanced toward each other in a threatening attitude. There is some conflict between the witnesses as to...