Heather v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 28 January 1904
• Citation: 78 S.W. 194
• Parties: HEATHER v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

78 S.W. 194

HEATHER v. THOMPSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 28, 1904

Appeal from Circuit Court, Laurel County.

"Not to be officially reported."

Controversy between William Heather and George C. Thompson over a reward of $250. From a judgment awarding $210 thereof to Thompson Heather appeals. Affirmed.

Hazelrigg & Chenault and L. A. West, for appellant.

James Sparks and D. K. Rawlings, for appellee.

SETTLE J.

This is a controversy between appellant and appellee over a reward of $250 offered by the Governor for the arrest of one Sol Griffin, who stood indicted for murder, and was a fugitive from justice. The reward is claimed by appellant, Wm Heather, who actually arrested the alleged murderer, and also by the appellee, Geo. C. Thompson, by whose procurement the arrest was made. It appears that Judge Tinsley, United States District Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky, by letter to appellee acquainted him with the offer of the reward by the Governor, and appellee took immediate steps to ascertain the whereabouts of Griffin, who was known to him as he was to Griffin, by visiting different counties and making inquiries of divers persons. He finally ascertained from an acquaintance in Clay county, where he visited for that purpose, that Griffin was at work at a sawmill in Estill county. He then went to Irvine, the county seat of Estill county, and from the investigation made after getting there became satisfied that Griffin was in the county. As he was well known to Griffin, he thought it best not to attempt his arrest himself, as he would likely be recognized by the former before he could get near enough to seize his person. So he contracted with the appellant, who was marshal of the town of Irvine, to make the arrest for him, which appellant then undertook to do for $20. Fearing that Griffin would hear of his (appellee's) presence in the county, and would suspect the object of his visit, and thereby be enabled to effect his escape, appellee left Irvine for Richmond, this state, but left his address with appellant, upon the latter's assurance and undertaking that he would arrest Griffin and inform appellee thereof immediately. Appellant thereupon went on the following day to the mill where Griffin was at work, and arrested him. After making the arrest, he failed to notify appellee that he had done so; but having, in the meantime, telegraphed the Governor, and learned of the reward, he started to London, the county seat of Laurel county, with the prisoner, intending to deliver him to the jailer and himself claim the reward, notwithstanding his agreement with appellee to arrest and deliver Griffin to him. When appellant got as far as Richmond with the prisoner on the way to London, appellee, learning of their being in the city, met them there, demanded of him the prisoner, offered to put his own handcuffs on the latter, and proposed to pay appellant the $20 for which he had agreed to make the arrest and to pay the expenses incurred by the appellant and his assistant in making the arrest: but to each and all of these demands and offers the appellant returned a positive refusal and, ignoring appellee, went on with the prisoner, though in appellee's company, to London, where he delivered the prisoner to the jailer of the county, who, over appellee's objection and protest gave to appellant a receipt for him. It is manifest that the arrest of Griffin was made at the instigation of appellee. In fact, he would not, in our opinion, have been arrested but for the investigation, industry, and...