Green v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1896
• Parties: GREEN v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

36 S.W. 700

97 Tenn. 50

GREEN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 16, 1896

Appeal from criminal court, Madison county; John M. Taylor, Judge.

Bart Green, alias Bard Green, was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. G Lynn and A. W. Storall, for appellant.

The Attorney General and E. L. Bullock, for the State.

McALISTER J.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the criminal court of Madison county of the murder of one Miles P. Mitchell, and from the sentence of death pronounced upon him, has appealed to this court. The crime was committed in the county of Hardeman, but, on account of the popular excitement prevailing there, the venue was changed to Madison county with the result already announced. The crime was one of peculiar atrocity, and, if the guilt of the prisoner has been established and his conviction secured in the manner prescribed by law, the judgment pronounced against him should be executed. The conviction was rested largely upon circumstantial evidence, fully set forth in a voluminous record, which has been very carefully examined by the court. But, before entering upon a discussion of the evidence, the theory of the state in respect of the crime will be briefly outlined.

It is claimed by the state that the crime was the result of a conspiracy entered into between the defendant, Bart Green, and another negro, one Moses Pirtle, to murder Miles Mitchell, and rob him of a large sum of money which it was thought he carried upon his person. Moses Pirtle was arrested as an accomplice in the crime, and, for protection from mob violence, he and the defendant, Bart Green, were lodged in jail at Nashville, where Moses Pirtle died prior to any trial. Miles Mitchell, the victim of the crime, was accustomed to carry upon his person large sums of money in a leather pocketbook, which he deposited in his inside vest or coat pocket. Moses Pirtle, the dead accomplice, had been employed, the year preceding the murder, upon Mitchell's farm, and had knowledge of the habit of Mitchell to carry large sums of money upon his person. It was also known to Pirtle that Mitchell was accustomed daily to go to his barn at a very early hour, for the purpose of feeding his stock. At the date of the homicide, Moses Pirtle lived with his father, Rube Pirtle, whose house was about 400 yards northeast of Mitchell's place. Bart Green, the prisoner at the bar, cultivated a small farm, known as the "Kinnie Place," situated about 2 miles north of the Mitchell farm, and about 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 miles northwest of where Moses Pirtle lived. The murder was committed on Monday morning, December 16, 1895, before daylight, while Mitchell was in his barn, in the act of feeding his stock; and the theory of the state is that the fatal shot was fired by the defendant, Bart Green, who robbed the body, and buried $70 of the money near a stump in the immediate vicinity, where it was subsequently found. It is not claimed by the state that Moses Pirtle was present when the homicide was committed, but it is claimed that he actively participated in planning the murder, and that, in pursuance of said plan, he loaded the gun, and set it outside his door, where it was found by Bart Green, and that Pirtle was to receive one-half of the money found upon the body. With this brief outline of the state's theory, we proceed to notice the more prominent facts and circumstances supporting that theory, and tending to incriminate the defendant.

The body of Miles Mitchell was discovered by his wife, about 7 o'clock in the morning, lying in a crib on the inside of a barn situated on the premises, about 100 yards from the house. The lantern which the deceased had used in the early morning was extinguished, and was hanging on the wall at the side of the crib, close to the door. The body was lying partially on its right side, with a large, lacerated gunshot wound in the left side of the head, tearing off a portion of the ear, lower jaw, and neck, severing the internal and external carotid artery, and producing, according to the medical experts, instant death. An examination of the wound showed that it had been inflicted at close range, with bird shot, delivered from a gun; the newspaper wadding and some of the shot being extracted by the surgeon. The vest of the deceased indicated that it had been unbuttoned from the top, the lower button being still fastened; and within the inside vest pocket bloody stains or splotches were plainly discernible, tending to show that a bloody hand had been introduced into this pocket. A splotch of blood was also observed on the facing of the crib door; that is to say, on the right-hand side as one would leave the crib, going from the inside to the outside, and about a foot and a half from the bottom. In the language of the witness, this blood looked like a splotch, and then a smear about like a hand would make, that had caught the facing. The barn in which this crib was built was divided by a passageway, and the crib where the body was found was on the left-hand side of the passageway, at the rear end. The rear end of this hall or passageway was inclosed by a lattice door, through which, the witnesses say, a man entering the barn with a lighted lantern could be plainly seen. An examination of the ground disclosed two tracks apparently of a man that stood very near this lattice door, at the rear of the barn, near the left-hand crib. Near this barn was a gate opening into an orchard, and through this orchard, across a ravine, and in the direction of Moses Pirtle's house, were distinctly outlined two sets of tracks, one set coming, and the other going, but plainly made by the same person. The witnesses describe these tracks as a little careened and run down to the outside on both feet. A comparison was made, on the day

of the killing, between these tracks and the tracks which Moses Pirtle was asked to make in some soft mud prepared for the purpose. Witnesses state that, while the track made by Moses Pirtle was of the same length, his track was perfectly straight, and not careened or twisted. It was, however, shown by witnesses who examined Bart Green's premises on the day of the killing that foot tracks precisely similar to those leading away from the scene of the homicide were found in his garden and also his corn field, where the defendant admits he was at work that morning. It was shown that, shortly before the trial below, the defendant, Bart Green, while confined in jail, had on a pair of shoes which careened on both sides after the manner of the tracks, and he admitted that he had on these shoes when he left Whiteville, which was the day of the murder. It was also shown in evidence that Bart Green was the owner of a gun, originally an army musket, but which had been bored for a shotgun; and that, on Friday preceding the murder, this gun was taken to the house of Moses Pirtle. Bart Green and Moses Pirtle were in conference on Saturday; and, by daylight Sunday morning, Green was again at Pirtle's house, and spent the entire day, leaving at a late hour in the evening. The theory of the state is that the murder was committed with this gun, and that, after the tragedy was enacted, Bart Green returned to the Pirtle place, and concealed the gun in the smokehouse. On this point the evidence showed that, about 1 o'clock on the day of the murder, bloodhounds were taken to the scene. They caught the trail at the orchard gate near the barn, and followed it along the peculiar tracks already described, out into an open field, in a northeasterly direction, running about 50 yards northwest of the Pirtle house, when suddenly they turned, and, coming back, crossed over to the Pirtle premises, stopped behind the smokehouse, and began to bark. This evidence was offered by the state in support of its theory, that, after the assassination of Mitchell, Bart Green returned to the Pirtle premises, and deposited the gun in the smokehouse. As further evidence of this fact, it was shown that on the morning of the killing, between 9 and 10 o'clock, Bart Green again returned to the Pirtle premises, repaired to the smokehouse, procured the gun, and, after making an ineffectual effort to hide it in the stovepipe, carried it to a thicket northeast of the garden, and there concealed it in some sassafras bushes. It was found by a searching party in that thicket, about 4 o'clock in the afternoon; and, upon examination, it was empty, as though recently discharged, with fresh powder burns on the tube and on the side of the barrel. There being some dirt in the muzzle, which prevented a proper inspection of the interior of the barrel, it was sawed in twain, and experts who examined it expressed the opinion that it had been recently fired. When Bart Green was asked about the gun, he denied having seen it, or any knowledge of its whereabouts. While the party was searching for the gun, Bart Green was upon the premises, and suggested that a pond situated in an opposite direction from the thicket would be a good place to look for it. This was before the defendant concealed the gun in the thicket, and, when the party dispersed, Bart Green went off with the constable, ostensibly for the purpose of going to the Mitchell place, but instead of doing so, upon becoming separated from Constable Foote, Green immediately and hastily returned to the Pirtle place, removed the gun from the smokehouse, and concealed it in the thicket.

The evidence is indubitable that the gun in question was the property of Bart Green; that he concealed it in the thicket and there can be no doubt that it is the weapon with which the deed was perpetrated. Another inculpatory circumstance is to be found in the fact that the defendant was the owner of a pair of buckskin gloves, which on Wednesday succeeding...