Hickam v. People

• Decision Date: 31 March 1891
• Citation: 27 N.E. 88,137 Ill. 75
• Parties: HICKAM et al. v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

137 Ill. 75

27 N.E. 88

HICKAM et al.

v.PEOPLE.¹

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 31, 1891.

Error to circuit court, Jackson county.

Indictment for murder. The affidavit for continuance referred to in the opinion stated that defendants expected to prove by Hugh Furgeson and John Slush that the deceased, Robert Knox, and one Henry Brown, who was also killed at the same time, had a conversation just about 20 minutes before the difficulty in which they lost their lives, in which Knox said he intended taking a club and bursting Thomas Hickam's damned head for him; that said Brown told said Knox to go ahead and do it, he would be right by him when it was done; and that said Knox about the same time, and immediately after said conversation, tried to borrow a pistol of Henan Henson; and that they expected to prove by Henry Morris that the deceased, Robert Knox, on the morning of the difficulty, while on his way to the place where it occurred, threatened that if the Hickams were there he intended to clean them out.

Youngblood & Barr, for plaintiffs, in error.

Geo. Hunt, Atty. Gen., for the People.

CRAIG, J.

Thomas and John Hickam, plaintiffs in error, were indicted on the 17th day of July, 1886, by the grand jury of Jackson county for the murder of Robert Knox. The indictment was returned to the August term, 1886, of the Jackson county circuit court, but no trial was had until the December term of the court, when the defendants were tried and convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 99 years.

At the term of court at which the cause was tried the defendants filed a petition for a change of venue from Jackson county on account of the prejudice of the inhabitants of the county against them. The principal ground relied upon in the petition to establish prejudice is that certain newspapers which circulated in Jackson county published exaggerated accounts of the difficulty which resulted in the murder, and thus the minds of the inhabitants of the county were greatly prejudiced against them. On the hearing of the petition the state's attorney filed 14 affidavits, signed by some 50 persons, residents of the county, denying the existence of prejudice against the defendants. The court denied the petition for a change of venue, and the decision is relied upon as error. Section 22, c. 146, Rev. St. 1874, p. 1095, provides, when the cause for the change of venue is the prejudice of the inhabitants of the county against the defendant, his petition shall set forth the facts on which he finds his belief; and the attorney in behalf of the people may deny the facts stated in the petition, and support his denial by counter-affidavits, and the judge may grant or deny the petition, as shall appear to be according to the right of the case. It was not denied, nor was it a question in dispute, that certain newspapers had published an account of the difficulty and the homicide of the person alleged to have been murdered by the defendants, but it was set up in the petition that the publication of these articles had produced prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of the county, and in consequence of such prejudice they could not receive a fair and impartial trial. In the affidavits filed by the state's attorney no attempt was made to deny the publication of the articles set out in the petition, but the fact that the publication of the articles had prejudiced the inhabitants of the county was expressly denied. Thus the existence or non-existence of prejudice of the inhabitants was the issue made and presented to the court for determination, and it was to be decided according to the right of the case upon the petition and the denial filed by the state's attorney, supported by counter-affidavits. We have carefully examined the petition and the denial supported by affidavits, and, while the question presented to the court may not be entirely free from doubt, we are not prepared to say, in view of all the facts, that the decision denying the petition was erroneous. In support of the state's attorney's denial affidavits were presented from leading citizens, residing in...