Ferguson v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1917
• Citation: 196 S.W. 140,138 Tenn. 106
• Parties: FERGUSON v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

196 S.W. 140

138 Tenn. 106

FERGUSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 16, 1917

Error to Circuit Court, Obion County; Jos. E. Jones, Judge.

Al Ferguson was convicted of murder, and he brings error.Affirmed.

C. N Lannom and H. C. Stanfield, both of Union City, for plaintiff in error.

W. H Swiggart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LANSDEN J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree for the killing of Will Robinson.The deceased was marshal of the town of South Fulton, Tenn., at the time of his death.The plaintiff in error had previous to the killing been engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors in Fulton, Ky.While thus engaged he was involved with the officers of the law in a number of cases, and was indicted in that state.Afterwards he moved to Tennessee.The line between this state and the state of Kentucky ran through the town of Fulton, the north portion thereof being in Kentucky and the south portion being in Tennessee.Plaintiff in error moved a short distance to South Fulton.The deceased became possessed of the idea that plaintiff in error was selling whisky in Tennessee in violation of law.He went to different employers of the plaintiff in error and stated to them that he was a bootlegger and had to leave South Fulton.He went to the last employer of plaintiff in error and upbraided him for harboring a bootlegger, and stated that plaintiff in error must leave South Fulton.The attitude of deceased toward plaintiff in error was known to plaintiff in error.The day before the killing the deceased was spying upon the place of business of plaintiff in error, and was seen by plaintiff in error while so engaged.Later plaintiff in error borrowed the pistol with which he killed deceased.On the day of the killing, after completing a day's labor, plaintiff in error went home with the pistol in his pocket, and when he arrived there ascertained that supper was not ready, and concluded to go to a neighbor's house to borrow a shoelast for the purpose of repairing the shoes of some of his children.On the way he came upon a negro who was rolling a wheelbarrow on the sidewalk.Plaintiff in error spoke to the negro and informed him that it was unlawful to roll the barrow on the sidewalk.The negro passed down the sidewalk with plaintiff in error walking behind until they came to the corner of Church and College streets.There they met the deceased, who asked the negro if he did not know that it was unlawful to roll a wheelbarrow on the sidewalk.The negro informed him that he did not, and thereupon deceased arrested the negro.There was a trunk in the wheelbarrow, and the deceased immediately concluded that the trunk belonged to plaintiff in error and contained intoxicating liquors.At this point the testimony is not in accord.The state's proof is to the effect that deceased accused plaintiff in error of being the owner of the trunk and notified the negro that he was in arrest.Plaintiff in error thereupon walked around the wheelbarrow, off the sidewalk, and passed to the rear of deceased, drew his pistol as he did so, and shoved deceased, and, with an oath, said the negro would not be arrested by deceased, and fired his pistol at deceased.Plaintiff in error says that he passed around the wheelbarrow and to the rear of deceased because that was the way for him to go to the neighbor's for the last, and that while doing so deceased accused him of being the owner of the trunk, and repeated his threat that plaintiff in error must leave South Fulton.Plaintiff in error says he denied being the owner of the trunk, and,...