Hedger v. State

Decision Date25 October 1910
Citation144 Wis. 279,128 N.W. 80
PartiesHEDGER v. STATE.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; J. C. Ludwig, Judge.

Ward E. Hedger was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he brings error.Affirmed.Kronshage, McGovern, Goff, Fritz & Hannan, for plaintiff in error.

F. L. Gilbert, Atty. Gen., Russell Jackson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Chas. A. A. McGee, Dist. Atty., and Norman L. Baker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the State.

TIMLIN, J.

Ward E. Hedger was found guilty of the murder in the first degree of his wife, Louise J., committed on September 9, 1909.On February 7, 1910, he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the full period of his natural life.After judgment and sentence, he moved for a new trial upon newly discovered evidence, and his motion was denied.He brings his cause to this court for review upon a writ of error to the judgment and sentence of conviction and a separate writ of error to the order after judgment denying him a new trial.Under the first mentioned writ he assigns 15 errors.The first, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth go to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and these will be considered together.

The accused and his wife had been married upwards of 20 years, had no children, and at the time of her death she was something over 40 and he about 50 years of age.He owned a homestead at No. 1219 Cedar street in Milwaukee, where they resided, and some other property, and he carried on a dress plaiting business at No. 105 Grand avenue, about seven minutes' ride on the street cars from a point at the intersection of Eleventh and Wells streets, 2 1/2 squares distant from his homestead.They leased a furnished room or rooms in their residence, and were reputed thrifty, respectable people of moderate means.Accused was somewhat, though not excessively, addicted to the use of intoxicating liquor, and, while his wife manifested some dissatisfaction on this ground, their domestic relations were apparently ordinarily harmonious.Two young men had a room in the house, a Mr. Peterson, who was at the time of Mrs. Hedger's death temporarily out of the state, and a Mr. Conrad, who left the Hedger residence at 7 o'clock and 20 minutes on the morning of September 9, 1909, and did not return until the evening of that day, after the discovery of Mrs. Hedger's dead body.One Iver Harrang, who formerly roomed in the Hedger house, was at the time in question a medical student in his senior year, and obliged to earn money to carry him through college.He was apparently practicing rigid economy, and worked as night watchman from about 7 p. m. to 7 a. m. upon a viaduct in course of construction at a distance from the Hedger house.He was in ill health, had incipient tuberculosis, influenza, and a disordered stomach.He was in the habit of calling every evening about 6 o'clock on his way to work at Hedger's for a lunch to be eaten by him at midnight on his work.This lunch included a bottle of coffee, and was prepared for and given to him by Mrs. Hedger gratuitously, and he had $70 in money which he left with Mrs. Hedger for safe-keeping.His relations with accused and with deceased were friendly.He roomed on Twelfth street, a short distance north of its intersection by Cedar street.Cedar street runs east and west.Wells street, having the street railway thereon, is one block south of and parallel with Cedar street.Both are crossed by Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth streets at right angles, numbering from east to west, and No. 1219 Cedar street is on the south side of Cedar street, faces north, and is about midway between Twelfth and Thirteenth streets.Next east of No. 1219 is an alley extending south from Cedar street to Wells street.Between this alley and the Hedger house beginning at the lot line on Cedar street is a wooden rail supported by posts which continues further back as a board fence toward the rear of the Hedger lot.West of this rail and fence, and east of the Hedger house and between the house and this rail and fence, is a narrow private sidewalk on the Hedger lot, which extends from the public sidewalk on Cedar street south to the rear of the house.The front or north door of the Hedger house is near the northeast corner of the house.It is reached only through, and inclosed in, a storm shed, which has but one door, which is on the east side of the storm shed.From this last-mentioned door three or four steps lead down to the narrow private sidewalk.It is only 6 or 7 feet from these steps to the rail between the private sidewalk and the alley.Thirty or 35 feet further south along this same narrow sidewalk is the side door to the Hedger residence, which opens into the kitchen.But this kitchen door is also inclosed by a storm shed having one door opening to the east, and some steps ascending to it from this private sidewalk.Further south the private sidewalk takes a turn to the west around the southeast corner of the house, and a step or two west from this turn there rise from the walk a few steps, which bring one on to the south end of the east porch of the house in which the side storm shed above mentioned is built, and also bring one to another door opening to the south and entering this same east storm shed.These three entrances are called by the witnesses the “front,” the “side,” and the “rear” entrance, but these terms are somewhat misleading.Entering the house by the front or north entrance, there is first the storm shed, then the front door, then a hall, with a parlor to the west, and south of this parlor a sitting room, east of the latter a dining room, and south of this is the kitchen, which is reached from the north by the door between it and the dining room, and from the east by a door opening into the east storm shed.In the second story are bedrooms.East of the Hedger house, and across the alley from it, is the Omlor residence.West of the Hedger residence, and extending from it to Thirteenth street and fronting on the last-named street, is the Waldeck barn and residence in the order named.South of the Waldeck residence, and fronting on Thirteenth street, but with its rear extending easterly to the rear of the Hedger lot, is the nurse's boardinghouse, occupied by Miss Casey, her domestic aide, and several professional nurses.The rear of the last-mentioned house is 60 or 70 feet from the rear of the Hedger residence.The Kennedy Flats are on the north side of Cedar street, and between Eleventh and Twelfth streets.The significance of the evidence would be lost if these descriptive details were not kept in mind.They have been collected from the evidence and exhibits in this case with some labor.

On the morning of September 9, 1909, the accused and his wife had breakfast together about 7:30 o'clock.Their breakfast consisted of coffee, rolls, bread, and boiled eggs.After breakfast, accused left the house at such time that he would reach the corner of Eleventh and Wells streets, 2 1/2 squares distant, at 7:49 or 7:50 o'clock.Accused and his wife were the only persons in their house after 7:20 o'clock and up to the time of his leaving about 7:45 or 7:47 o'clock.There was testimony which the jury had a right to believe by four persons, two in the Waldeck house and two in the Casey house, that they heard a shot in the direction of the Hedger house at 7:45 o'clock.Some of them also heard following the shot a sound like falling dishes.Much criticism is made on this evidence, but its credibility was for the jury.The accused boarded the street car at the time stated, went down to his place of business, and it is vigorously contended that it has been shown by the testimony of various persons that he remained downtown at or in the immediate neighborhood of his place of business all day, and did not return to his residence until evening.There is testimony to support that conclusion had the jury so found.But the witness Malcolm McHarg testifies that he saw the accused about 10:30 or 10:45 o'clock in the morning of September 9th at the Kennedy Flats in the neighborhood of the residence of the accused, and saluted him.A clerk at the drug store on the corner of Eleventh and Wells streets saw accused pass there at 2:30 p. m., and Mrs. Waldeck and her daughter, the next door neighbors of the accused, saw him coming from the direction of his residence and passing the Waldeck residence going west on Cedar street toward Thirteenth street at about 2:10 p. m. on the same day.The accused left his place of business, 105 Grand avenue, at 5:30 p. m., and went directly home, and, after alighting from the street car at or near the intersection of Eleventh and Wells streets, stopped to purchase a bottle of milk, and took it home with him, as was his custom.Whether from this point he went home by going north on Twelfth and west on Cedar street or north on Thirteenth street and east on Cedar street, or up through the alley mentioned leading from Wells to Cedar street, is not shown.According to his admissions to the officers, he did buy this milk on his way home, found the rear (east?) door locked, then set down his bottle of milk, and went in the front door.After he entered, he was informed by Iver Harrang, whom he first met inside the house, that his wife was on the kitchen floor dead, and he went back to the kitchen, and felt of her forehead and hands and found them cold.A different version of the occurrences at the Hedger residence at this time is given by Harrang.The latter left his rooms on Twelfth street five minutes before 6 o'clock, going south on Twelfth street, and west on Cedar street to the Hedger residence with his coffee bottle to get his usual midnight lunch from Mrs. Hedger.He would thus face Hedger were the latter approaching Cedar street from Wells on Twelfth street, walk with him or near him were the accused proceeding west on Cedar street at this time, and would...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
26 cases
  • State v. Hudson
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • October 22, 1962
    ...Wash.2d 810, 204 P.2d 207, 239--243 (Sup.Ct.1949), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 862, 70 S.Ct. 97, 94 L.Ed. 529 (1949); Hedger v. State, 144 Wis. 279, 128 N.W. 80, 90--91 (Sup.Ct.1910).By a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that failure to refer to lack of evidence constitutes reversi......
  • Muller v. State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1980
    ... ... State, 85 Wis.2d 22, 33, 270 N.W.2d 153 (1978); Fells v. State, 65 Wis.2d 525, 534, 223 N.W.2d 507 (1974); Austin v. State, 52 Wis.2d 716, 721, 190 N.W.2d 887 (1971); State v. Carlson, 5 Wis.2d 595, 604, 93 N.W.2d 354 (1958); Hedger v. State, 144 Wis. 279, [94 Wis.2d 471] 303, 128 N.W. 80 (1911). This court has specifically held the language in the instruction to be proper in a case where the defendant contended that this language shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, Greer v. State, 40 Wis.2d 72, 77, 161 N.W.2d 255 ... ...
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1911
    ... ... presenting such matters to the jury by instruction." ... The ... reasoning of the court in that case clearly illustrates the ... vice of the rejected part of appellant's request in this ... case. And the doctrine there announced is reaffirmed in the ... case of Hedger v. State (Wis.), 144 Wis. 279, 128 ... [39 ... Utah 175] Appellant cites and relies upon the case of ... People v. Hancock , 7 Utah 170, 25 P. 1093, and ... State v. Van Kuran , 25 Utah 8, 69 P. 60, as decisive ... of this question. In each of those cases the defendant ... ...
  • State v. Stringer
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1948
    ... ... 299, p. 395. But here her ... failure to report the child's death to the coroner is not ... necessarily inconsistent with her innocence. In some ... instances failure to report a death might be a most cogent ... circumstance pointing to guilt. For example, in Hedger ... [211 S.W.2d 931] ... State, 144 Wis. 279, 128 N.W. 80, a husband knew that his ... wife lay dead in the kitchen of their home, a victim of ... violence, and yet he failed to report the fact to anyone and ... so contrived that someone else should apparently be the first ... to discover ... ...
  • Get Started for Free

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT