Dillin v. People

• Citation: 8 Mich. 357
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 09 June 1860
• Parties: John Dillin v. The People

8 Mich. 357

John Dillin v. The People

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 9, 1860

Heard April 28, 1860 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Error to Barry circuit.

The plaintiff in error was charged with the murder of Jane Harding, on the thirty-first day of May, 1858. On the trial, at an adjourned term of said court, in November, 1858, James Ransom, a witness for the prosecution, testified that the deceased was the wife of Abram L. Harding, and formerly lived in Maple Grove, in Barry county. She removed from Maple Grove in September, 1857, to Napoleon, in Jackson county. Before this removal, and some time in August, 1857, her house was burned up. She came back to the house of witness, in Maple Grove, May 15th, 1858, and stayed there until May 31st. Witness saw her on the morning of the 31st, alone, on foot, going east past his house. She said she was going to the post-office, and over into the east settlement to Mr. Anderson's. Witness next saw her dead in the woods on the 16th of June following. From May 31st to June 16th search was made for her, and she was found on the day last named, about twenty-four rods west of the north and south road running through Maple Grove, dead, and partially buried with rotten wood, leaves and barks. Dillin had lived at Maple Grove on a forty-acre lot adjoining a half acre occupied by the deceased in 1858. He had wheat on this forty acres in 1857.

The prosecution was then permitted to prove by this witness, under objection for want of relevancy, that this wheat was put up in stacks, and was burned up on the 12th of August, 1857; that the house of the deceased was burned the same day, and that he saw them both burning at the same time.

The witness further testified that difficulties arose between the deceased and the prisoner about the burning of the house and wheat sacks, and that the prisoner and five others were complained of by the deceased for burning her house, and an examination had before a magistrate on the complaint, on which the deceased was examined as a witness.

The prosecution afterwards called George W. Hutchinson, who, having given important evidence, and having also testified that he was a witness on the examination of the prisoner for the murder, before a magistrate, and was recognized to appear as a witness on this trial, was asked the following question: "Since that time has any effort been made to have you leave and not appear in this cause as a witness?" To which question the prisoner's counsel objected that it was inadmissible to prove efforts to induce the witness to leave, made by any person except the prisoner, or some one authorized by him for that purpose. The prosecution replied that they expected to trace it to the prisoner. The objection was then overruled by the court, and the witness answered: "I don't know how to answer that. I can go on and tell the whole story." The prosecution then asked the following question: "State whether you had any conversation with Mr. Brackett, one of the counsel for the prisoner in this case, about going away and not appearing as a witness on this trial." To which the prisoner's counsel objected, but the prosecution stating that they expected evidence would be elicited to satisfy the jury of the prisoner's connection with it, the objection was overruled, and the witness testified as follows:

"I had conversation with Mr. Brackett about my not appearing as a witness. It was at Belleview, in September last. I told Mr. Brackett that if I had money I would go away. Mr. Brackett said he guessed the money could be got. Mr. Peter Dillin, the father of the prisoner, was present, and Brackett proposed to Mr. Dillin that I wanted to borrow some money. After a while Mr. Brackett told me that I could get the money of Henry Hickok. I saw Mr. Hickok, and he proposed to give me $ 15, and a pair of boots, if I would go to Kansas and look up a man for him. I told him I would go for $ 20. The contract was finally made in writing. The agreement to be put in writing was, that if I staid away until the first of April next, then I was to pay nothing; but if I came back before the trial, then I was to pay back, with ten per cent interest. Mr. Brackett drew the contract. The whole thing was well understood between me and Brackett. After the first talk with Brackett about going away, I saw Peter Dillin at Mr. Brackett's office. Brackett had told me my bail would not be liable. I went to Brackett's office to get the money to go away with. Brackett had sent word to Peter Dillin to be present. He was present. Peter Dillin had before said he would try to raise the money; that it was hard work for him to raise money to get the witnesses for the defense. Hickok gave me the money the next day. The money was paid in Brackett's office, and Brackett was present." The witness further testified that he left and went to Marshall the next day, and from there to Detroit, and did not return at the next regular term of the court in October. He afterwards wrote to the sheriff to come after him, and was brought back.

The prosecution then called Polly Carpenter, who testified that on May 31st, 1858, the prisoner same to the house of her husband, on said north and south road in Maple Grove, and about forty rods north of the house of Aaron Brooks, and left about eleven o'clock in the forenoon. On cross-examination she stated that he was there about an hour. When he had been in there a spell, he asked for a book. The prisoner's counsel then asked the witness the following questions: "What did he do while in the house? What did he talk about? Did he tell you where he came from? Did he tell you where he was going? While at your house did he inquire for any one?" All of which questions were objected to as inadmissible on cross-examination, and the objection sustained. But the witness was afterwards called for the defense, and was allowed to testify, and did testify, as to what the prisoner talked about on this occasion, and was allowed to testify fully as to what he said about Mrs. Harding.

Asa E. Lapham was also called for the prosecution, and testified that on May 31st, 1858, at some time between twelve and one o'clock, witness was at the post-office on said north and south road, kept by Hyde. While there, and about fifteen minutes after his arrival, the prisoner came into the office, and stayed some ten or fifteen minutes. When he came in, he appeared warm. Witness noticed perspiration on his forehead. He leaned back in his chair, and then leaned forward several times. "There was something in his appearance that I can not describe. There was a kind of excitability about his manner that I can not describe. He seemed to have the appearance of being excited, and at the same time trying to conceal it."

On his cross-examination the witness testified that the prisoner made an errand at the office. The prisoner's counsel then inquired what the errand was. To which question the prosecution objected, and the court sustained the objection.

The witness further testified that the prisoner brought some letter stamps while there, and had conversation with Hyde, Carpenter and the witness, but the witness was not permitted by the court to state what the conversation was.

Carpenter was then called as a witness for the prisoner, and testified to being at the post-office at the time spoken of by Lapham, and to the prisoner having made a contract there. The prisoner's counsel inquired of the witness what the contract was. The prosecution objected to the question, and the court sustained the objection. The prisoner's counsel also asked the witness what the prisoner talked about there--which question was also objected to by the prosecution, and the objection sustained.

Carpenter further stated on his examination in chief, that Lapham was with him at the post-office. He noticed that the prisoner was sweaty when he came in. Did not notice anything else. Did not notice his clothes. On his cross-examination, he said he did not know which way the prisoner came from, and did not go out with Lapham to see. The following questions were then put to the witness by the prosecution, under the prisoner's objection that they were not proper on cross-examination, and the following answers had:

Question. Did you see by the prisoner's tracks which way he came? Answer. I can't say that they were his tracks. Question. Did you not say to Mr. Lapham on that day, while looking at those tracks, "these are John's tracks?" Answer. I don't know as I did. Question. Did you not then and there tell Mr. Lapham that you thought they were John Dillin's tracks? Answer. I think I did. Question. Did you think so? Answer. I did. Question. Did you see John Dillin before that day? Answer. I saw a man that I supposed to be him, going north of the school-house--nobody with him. I don't know the exact time. The person I saw was some 30 or 40 rods off. I was chopping some 10 or 15 rods south of the Spencer school-house--by the side of the north and south road.

The testimony being closed, the counsel for the people, in summing up to the jury, commented on the testimony of Hutchinson, relating to the attempt testified by him to have been made by Brackett, Peter Dillin, and Hickok, to hire and induce him, the witness, to go away and not appear as a witness in this cause on behalf of the people; claiming and arguing that the same should be received by the jury as tending to establish the guilt of the prisoner.

The counsel for the prisoner requested the court to instruct the jury that they should utterly discard the entire evidence given by Hutchinson in regard to the effort of Brackett Hickok and others, to induce him to...