Hughes v. People

• Decision Date: 27 March 1886
• Citation: 6 N.E. 55,116 Ill. 330
• Parties: HUGHES v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

116 Ill. 330

6 N.E. 55

HUGHES

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 27, 1886.

Error to Crawford.

Allen & Olwin and Olney, Parker & Cowley, for plaintiff in error.

George W. Hunt, Atty. Gen., and E. Callaghan, for the People.

SCOTT, J.

At the March term, 1884, of the circuit court of Crawford county, Daniel Hughes was indicted for the murder of Victor M. Joseph. On the trial at a subsequent term of that court defendant was found guilty, by the jury to whom the cause was submitted, of the crime of manslaughter, and the punishment at service in the penitentiary was fixed at a period of 12 years. A motion of a new trial, supported as to some grounds by affidavits, was made, and was, after due consideration by the court, overruled, and judgment pronounced on the verdict. Defendant brings the case to this court on error.

The defense in the trial court seems to have been rested mainly on two grounds: (1) That the killing was done in self-defense; (2) that defendant was insane at the time, and was not therefore subject to punishment as for crime. It is for these reasons it is insisted in this court it was error in the circuit court to refuse a new trial, and that the present judgment should be reversed. The record is quite voluminous, but the evidence it contains has been subjected to the most careful study. It is seen the testimony relating to the homicide is very brief, and contains very little that is conflicting. No one saw the fatal shot fired. The killing took place at about 9 o'clock in the evening of the eleventh of December, 1883. Just before the shooting defendant was in his drugstore with a brother of deceased. They were talking about deceased, whom defendant seems to have thought was one of a party that had subjected him to great indignity about a month previous to that time. The conversation that took place shows defendant entertained very intense hatred to these persons who had outraged him, and deceased was one of the suspected parties. It seems defendant and Herschel Joseph were in the store of defendant, and had the door locked and the lights put out. It was, however, a very bright moon-light night, so that any one passing the windows could be readily recognized. Some one passed, and defendant inquired who it was, and was told it was deceased, going to see the mail carrier, to ascertain if he could ride with him the next day to Robinson. Presently the deceased returned, and probably looked into the store through the glass in the doors, and passed on, and as soon as he had passed defendant pulled out a revolver, and said to Herschel Joseph, ‘You remain here till I come back,’ and unlocked the door and went out. It was but a brief moment before the report of a pistol shot was heard. Immediately, Herschel Joseph went and met defendant, who told him he had killed his brother. The shot fired by defendant took effect in the head of deceased, and death ensued almost instantly. When the body was found, both hands of deceased were in his pockets. He had no weapons of any kind on his person. There is some conflict as to what defendant said to Herschel Joseph just after the fatal shot was fired; but, assuming either account of what was said to be true, it does not seriously affect the merits of the case.

Without entering upon any close analysis of the testimony, it is sufficient to say that, after a most careful consideration, the conclusion reached is, it wholly fails to sustain the theory the killing was done in self-defense. Had defendant remained in his store, there is no pretense deceased would have interfered with him in any way whatever. He had passed by the store without giving defendant any cause of complaint. Surely, when one goes out in search of his enemy, and kills him when found, it cannot be said it was done in self-defense. Nor has the suggestion defendant went out to ascertain whether any injury was being done to his property anything in its support. The evidence shows, past all doubt, the killing was done some considerable distance from his storehouse. He must have gone in search of deceased. The law will not permit a person to follow up his enemy, and, if an encounter ensue, justify the killing as being done in self-defense. In this case the evidence tends to show no encounter ever took place. Going upon the street, where he knew deceased was, and, on meeting him, defendant commanded him to throw up his arms, and because he did not do it he shot him. The evidence tends to show a deliberate purpose to kill deceased, rather than it was done in self-defense, and so the jury must have found. That conclusion seems to be best sustained by the weight of the evidence. At least, there is no reason, in the opinion of this court, for setting the verdict aside on that ground.

Most of the testimony in the record is in regard to the condition of the defendant's mind,-whether he was sane or insane at the time of the homicide. This has also been subjected to the closest scrutiny. It is seen it is in a measure conflictiong, but the weight of the entire evidence seems to lie with the conclusion reached by the jury. Defendant was a practicing physician, and had a drug-store, which he attendedhimself. Since he had a partial paralysis, some of his neighbors-physicians as well as non-professional persons-think he was not exactly right in his mind,-certainly not as strong as he was before his sickness. Others could see no difference in his mental condition. Physicians that were well acquainted with him, and saw him every day, testified they thought he was entirely sane. There would seem to be much good sense in the statement of one of the physicians when he says the ‘idea of insane impulse without insanity is unreasonable;’ and then he added; ‘There can be no such condition as a person being sane one moment, insane the next, and sane again immediately after.’ This witness further says: ‘Insanity is a disease of the brain,’ and expresses his disbelief of the idea the ‘brain can be diseased one moment and sound the next.’ The theory is advanced, ‘if insanity existed at all, it will continue to exist until the cause is removed, and will manifest its presence at intervals.’ How this may be can only be known to such persons as have made such matters as mental diseases the subject of study. All the medical witnesses seem to agree that in what they term ‘ hemiplegia’ the ‘mind is generally weakened.’ One of the physicians examined as a witness for defendant says: ‘There is not much difference between...