Gott v. People

• Decision Date: 19 October 1900
• Citation: 187 Ill. 249,58 N.E. 293
• Parties: GOTT v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

187 Ill. 249

58 N.E. 293

GOTT

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 19, 1900.

Error to circuit court, Wabash county; E. D. Youngblood, Judge.

Daniel P. Gott was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.Organ & Ashley, Mundy & Phipps, and S. Z. Landes, for appellant.

George P. Ramsey, State's Atty., and E. C. Akin, Atty. Gen., for the People.

This is an indictment found by the grand jury of White county against the plaintiff in error, Daniel P. Gott, for the murder of his wife, Margaret Gott, on the 8th day of June, 1899, in White county. The plaintiff in error was arraigned in open court, and pleaded not guilty to the indictment. A motion was made for a change of venue from White county on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants. This motion was supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff in error. The people, by leave of court, filed cross or counter affidavits. A change of venue was granted to Wabash county, and the sheriff of White county was ordered to carry plaintiff in error to Wabash county as required by law, and the clerk was ordered to certify a transcript of the proceedings to Wabash county, all of which was done. Thereafter a motion was made to quash the indictment for the reason stated in the opinion of the court, but this motion was overruled by the trial court, and plaintiff in error excepted to the overruling of the same. A jury was impaneled, and a trial was had in the circuit court of Wabash county; and on November 24, 1899, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and returned into court a verdict finding the defendant guilty, and fixing his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for the term of his natural life. The plaintiff in error then made a motion for a new trial, and, in support of some of the reasons urged in favor of a new trial, filed a number of affidavits. The motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was rendered upon the verdict, and sentence was pronounced upon the plaintiff in error in accordance therewith. The present writ of error is sued out for the purpose of reviewing the judgment so rendered by the circuit court of Wabash county.

Margaret Gott, the wife of the plaintiff in error, was killed on the night of June 7, 1899, or, rather, on the morning of June 8, 1899, between the hours of 12 and 1 o'clock. She was killed by a shot from a pistol. The pistol ball entered just above her right ear, and ranged a little down and back. Before the breath left the body of Margaret Gott, the plaintiff in error, her husband, ran out of their house, partially dressed, to one of the neighbors, named Raub, who lived a short distance away from them. He aroused Mr. Raub from his sleep, and stated to him that burglars had entered the house, and robbed him and shot his wife, and, as he thought, had killed her. He requested Raub to go for Dr. Harrell and for the city marshal, Moses Willis. The doctor was aroused, and went at once to the house. When the killing took place, no one was in the house except the plaintiff in error and his wife, unless the two burglars mentioned by him were also present in the house. Dr. Harrell found Mrs. Gott lying upon the east side of the bed, next to the wall; her left foot hanging off the bed, and the right foot lying just over the edge of the bed. There was a bolster across the head of the bed. The cover was up above her right knee. She was lying a little on the left side, with her left arm hanging off the bed,-not exactly square on her back, but nearer on her back than her side,-her head turned a little to the left. She had a pleasant expression on her face, and gasped once for breath after the doctor came in sight of her. Her gown was buttoned at the top, but pulled apart. Her head was on the edge of the bolster, and there was a powder burn or smoke on it six or eight inches from the head. One of the drawers of the dresser was on the chair, and the other was on the floor. The bottom drawer was pulled nearly out of the dresser, and papers were scattered over the floor. The plaintiff in error requested the doctor to go after Moses Willis, the city marshal, and William Hill, a deputy sheriff, but the doctor stepped across the street and rang the church bell. This brought to the house a number of people living in Norris City, where the parties resided, and where the killing occurred.

The plaintiff in error stated to a number of persons who came to the house that night, and also stated in his testimony given before a police magistrate on June 20, 1899, that he was awakened in the night by a noise, which he at first supposed to be mice in the bureau drawer, among his papers; that he was lying on the bed by the side of his wife; that, the noise continuing, he awoke and started to put on his pantaloons, when he saw a large man on the floor, examining the papers and other articles in one of the bureau drawers; that, upon his attempting to arise, this man ‘covered’ him with his revolver and with the light of his lantern; that he asked the man if he wanted his money, and told him that he would give it to him; that he thereupon gave the man his purse, which, as he said, contained $60 or $70; that his wife was awakened, and had in her hands, or near her person, a purse with some $90 or thereabouts in it, and also a watch; that there then appeared from the adjoining room a smaller man, whose breath smelt strongly of liquor; that the smaller man approached his wife, and, upon her seeming to resist, he stated to her that she had better surrender her money to the man; that thereupon the large man struck him a blow and knocked him over the rocking chair into the adjoining room, through the open door of the latter; that while he was in the adjoining room, and before he recovered himself, he heard a pistol fired; that some of the silver coin in his wife's purse fell on the floor, and was picked up by one of the men; that the men not only took his purse and his wife's purse, but also his revolver, which appears to have been lying on a chair or in a bureau drawer; that the men then left the house, he stating at one time or to one person that they both left through the front door, and at another time and to another person that one left through the front door and the other through the back door; that as they left they told him, upon peril of his life, to keep still for five minutes; that after they left the house he saw them upon the road or street in front of the house, near a woodpile or pile of posts; that they were both masked, and he did not see their faces; that the last he saw of them they were close to the pile of posts, and going eastward. Some time after the killing took place a pistol was found upon the railroad track, near the house where the plaintiff in error lived, with the letters ‘D. P.’ on it, and the testimony tended to show that this pistol belonged to the plaintiff in error. Bloodhounds were put upon the trail, or were employed to find the trail, of the alleged burglars upon the morning of the killing; but they stopped or lost the trail a little way up the railroad track, not a great distance from the house. There was some testimony tending to show that two strange men-hard-looking cases-were in that neighborhood either on the day of the killing, or a day or two before the killing took place. The plaintiff in error was 57 years old, and his wife was 65 years old. They had been married about 11 years, and had no children. The state proved that a widow 27 years old, with two children, lived in a house owned by the plaintiff in error in Norris City. Her name was Mrs. Lou Rankin. It is proven in the case, and principally if not altogether by her testimony, that a criminal intimacy had existed between the plaintiff in error and Mrs. Rankin for about 2 years prior to the killing of Mrs. Gott. During this time he supported Mrs. Rankin, furnishing her and her children with clothing and provisions, and the house they lived in. Mrs. Rankin swears that, about a year before she testified in this case, he asked her to leave Norris City with him. Her husband, who at one time had worked for the plaintiff in error, had been separated from her for some two years, or thereabout. She also states that during the existence of this intimacy he visited her almost every day. At one time he made a trip with her to Cairo, and they stayed all night together in one room. He was at her house and in her company on the evening before the killing, and was also there on the Sunday evening after the killing, which, as we understand the evidence, took place on Wednesday or Thursday.

MAGRUDER, J. (after stating the facts).

1. A motion was made in the court below to quash the indictment upon the alleged ground that the board of supervisors which selected the grand jury was not then holding a legal session. The board was met in extra session when the grand jury was selected. The reason why the extra session is said to nave been illegal is that newspaper notice of the meeting of the board was given one week only, and that three weeks' notice of such meeting was not given. Counsel for plaintiff in error contend that it was necessary to give three weeks' notice of the extra session of the board of supervisors. Section 50 of chapter 34 of the Revised Statutes, being the act in regard to ‘Counties,’ provides that ‘special meetings of the board of supervisors shall be held only when requested by at least one-third of the members of the board, which request shall be in writing, addressed to the clerk of the board, and specifying the time and place of such meeting, upon reception of which the clerk shall immediately transmit notice, in writing, of such meeting to each of the members of the board. The clerk shall also cause notice of such meeting to be published in some newspaper printed in the county, if any there be.’ 1 Starr & C. Ann. St. (2d Ed.) p. 1096. Whatever testimony there is in the record in regard to this extra session of the board...