Fuller v. State

• Decision Date: 02 May 1906
• Citation: 95 S.W. 541
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
• Parties: FULLER v. STATE.

95 S.W. 541

FULLER v. STATE.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 2, 1906.

Appeal from District Court, Angelina County; James I. Perkins, Judge.

George F. Fuller was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

O'Quinn & Robb, for appellant. Howard Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HENDERSON, J.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life; hence this appeal.

The state simply proved the killing and the circumstances immediately connected therewith, and some evidence of threats by appellant against deceased prior to the killing. The facts connected with the homicide showed that about 12 o'clock on the 27th day of March, 1905, appellant, armed with a pistol, came up with deceased (Brunsterman) at the Lufkin National Bank, in the town of Lufkin. He went into the bank, where deceased was, pursued him rapidly through the private office of the bank, then through another office into the vault, where deceased had evidently fled for safety, and there fired two shots at him; the first missing him, and the second taking effect in deceased's ear, ranging down through his head from left to right, and coming out at an angle of his jaw, and penetrating his arm, coming out near the elbow. This shot caused his immediate death. Appellant introduced a good deal of testimony tending to show that the killing occurred because of an insult to a female relative, to wit, his daughter. It appears from these facts that deceased had charge of a large orchard, as manager, situated at Manton, near Lufkin. Some months before the homicide appellant was a conductor on the Houston East & West Texas Railway, in Louisiana; his family, consisting of his wife and daughter (Lula) and son (Willie), living at Lufkin. Some time during the latter part of 1904 deceased procured the wife of appellant to go on the place he was managing and keep a boarding house for the hands. Shortly after this appellant was sent for by his wife, and he came and was employed by deceased as foreman of some of the hands at the orchard. Some time in the latter part of December, and after the parties had been living there two or three weeks, deceased (who took his meals at the boarding house of the Fullers) began paying attention to Lula (the daughter of appellant), who was 17 years old. They became engaged to be married, and deceased asked the parents for permission to marry her. They objected on the ground that she was too young, and asked him to wait a year or two. He declined to do this, and stated that as soon as she was 18 he would marry her anyhow. They then agreed for them to marry, and it seems the marriage was fixed to occur the latter part of December. About December 21st deceased came one night to appellant's home and told him the marriage was broken off; that he would not marry his daughter. Appellant wanted to know why, but he declined to tell. Deceased on the same evening had told Lula that he had heard some evil reports about her; that she had done wrong, and proposed to her that she be examined by three physicians, and if they said she was all right he would be satisfied, and desired Lula to go to Lufkin and be examined. She told him she would not submit to any such proposition without consulting her father and mother; that if they were willing she would be examined; that she did not fear the result of an examination. After deceased came to appellant that night and told appellant that the marriage was broken off, on the next morning, Lula told her mother what occurred between her and deceased. Appellant sought deceased, and found him at O'Quinn's law office, in Lufkin; and there, in the presence of Dr. Denman, demanded to know of deceased why he had broken his engagement with his daughter. Deceased then told him what he had heard about her, that he had been told her character for virtue was not good, and that he had made the proposal to her to be examined by three physicians. The matter was talked over, and appellant agreed with deceased that Dr. Denman (then present) and two other reputable physicians might examine his daughter, and, if it was proved that she was unchaste, he would get on his knees to him and beg his pardon for what he had said to him the night before. Appellant also undertook to follow up the reports deceased told him about, and made some inquiries of Charley Moore, who told him that he had heard certain other parties making disparaging remarks about his daughter. After this, and before the examination of Lula should have occurred, deceased came again to the house of appellant on the night of December 25th, and told appellant he wanted to marry Lula, and did not desire any examination; that he was satisfied the reports he had heard were not true. Appellant objected, because the examination had not taken place. The next morning deceased again insisted that he and Lula be married; and it seems they were married on that day. The parties all continued to live on the fruit farm at Manton. After this, about the middle of February, deceased and his wife (Lula) visited Houston and stopped with the family of H. O. Fuller in that city, with whom deceased's wife and her family were acquainted, having become friends when the Fuller family formerly lived in Houston. While on this visit, according to the testimony of Mrs. Brunsterman and Mrs. H. O. Fuller, deceased insisted his wife should go to a doctor in Houston and let him perform an abortion on her. His wife refused to do this. Whereupon appellant charged her with being pregnant with a bastard child, and stated if she did not permit the abortion he would know it was a bastard, and he did not believe he was the father of the child, and when it was born he would take the little bastard by the heels and slam its brains out against the fence. On the return from Houston to deceased's home, the parties did not get along very well. The wife of deceased testified that about the 1st of March deceased had determined to quit her, and told her he was going to get a divorce from her; that he had no cause for divorce, and desired her to select some man and he would get him to come and sleep with her, so he might catch him, and then he would sue for a divorce. This she indignantly declined. She told her mother of this matter about the 4th of March, and also what occurred at Houston between her and deceased in the presence of Mrs. H. O. Fuller; and shortly afterwards her mother told appellant about these matters. On March 12th appellant left the fruit farm and moved to Lufkin, where his daughter shortly joined him, having separated from deceased.

Appellant's testimony shows that after this he secured employment at Humble, near Houston, and that he had packed his household goods to move to Humble. On March 27th he had started to the depot to see if a car had been placed so he could load his things. On the way appellant met A. J Vinson between Richardson's drug store and Anderson's barber shop, and Vinson told him that he had just seen Brunsterman and had a talk with him; that Brunsterman told him he did not want Lula to appear against him in his divorce case against her; that he did not want to expose her; that she was two months gone in pregnancy when he married her. Appellant proved this both by his own testimony and that of Vinson. According to appellant's testimony, everything behind that statement made by Vinson, and Vinson's statement, made him so mad that he did not know what to do; that he went to the depot to see about the car, and went from there to his house and got his pistol, and came back down in town to kill Brunsterman; that he saw deceased's horse hitched in front of a store, and he stopped to see if he was there. Not seeing him there, he turned and met his son Willie, and asked him where he was going, and he replied, "To the post office." Appellant went with him, thinking he might see Brunsterman there. Not seeing him, he started towards Mantooth's law office, thinking Brunsterman might be there. When appellant walked out of the post office, Brunsterman was not quite half way from Menefee & Peavey's store to the bank, and appellant followed on behind him. Brunsterman was in his shirt sleeves, but had on a vest. Appellant says he told Brunsterman as he walked up, "`I want to see you.' Deceased struck me on my right arm with his hand and broke to run, and I followed him up. I went down there, you understand, to kill him; and after me speaking to him, I didn't propose then for him to get behind that door facing and kill me, and I followed him up. Deceased ran around and run in the door, and then in another door into the main office of the bank, and I shot at him, and I don't know whether I hit him that time or not. He ran into the vault, and I followed him to the door, and when I got to the door I shot him again." Appellant narrates the circumstances of the killing about as the witnesses for the state. He says emphatically that he went down there to kill him as soon as Vinson told him what he did; that if he had had a cannon he would have blown him off the face of the earth with it; that he supposed it was 30 or 40 minutes after Vinson had told him until he killed deceased. On cross-examination, appellant stated "that, when I spoke to deceased in the bank, I intended to ask him if he had made the statement told me by Vinson, and, if he said he did, I was going to shoot him down like a dog. If he had denied it, I intended to take him before Vinson; and if Vinson told him to his face that he did say what Vinson told me, then I intended to shoot him. I was so enraged that I hardly knew what I was doing. I followed him up after he struck me, because I thought he was armed, as I knew he was in the habit of carrying a pistol, and I thought he was trying to get the advantage of me to kill me. He struck me on the right forearm. There was nothing said by Brunsterman and nothing by myself...