Kollock v. State

• Decision Date: 13 November 1894
• Citation: 88 Wis. 663,60 N.W. 817
• Parties: KOLLOCK ET AL. v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

88 Wis. 663

60 N.W. 817

KOLLOCK ET AL.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Nov. 13, 1894.

Appeal from circuit court, Portage county; Charles M. Webb, Judge.

Henry Kollock and Shepard F. Kollock were convicted of feloniously burning barns, and appeal. Reversed.

Arson. The plaintiffs in error were convicted of feloniously burning the barns of one Springer, August 25, 1893, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison, and they bring error to reverse that judgment. The plaintiffs in error were neighbors of Springer, living about half a mile from him, on the same road. For years there had been ill feeling between the Kollocks and Springer. The barns burned about 1:30 o'clock a. m. Threshing had been going on in one of the barns during the forenoon of the day before the fire. There was some evidence that Springer was smoking in or about the barn during the threshing, but this was denied by Springer. Other than this, there was no evidence that there had been any fire or light about the barn prior to the fire. There was evidence that both of the Kollocks had previously threatened to burn Springer out. There was also evidence by Springer that after the fire he met Henry Kollock, and said to him, “You did burn me out, didn't you?” to which Kollock answered, “Yes.” There was also evidence that four of Springer's horses were poisoned in 1889 by some unknown person, and that in 1887, and again in 1891, a large quantity of his hay was destroyed by fire. This evidence was followed by evidence of witnesses who testified to hearing a conversation between Henry Kollock and his brother Nelson Kollock, in 1891, in which Nelson said to Henry, referring to Springer, ‘You are even with him now. You have poisoned his horses and burned his hay,”––to which Henry made no denial, but said he would get more than even with him. All of these threats and admissions were denied. There was also evidence given by a hired girl who lived at Kollock's house at the time of the fire, that she was awakened by the light shining in her room, and went to the window, and saw the defendants returning to their house from the direction of Springer's barns, and heard them come into the house. This was also denied. The foregoing is substantially all of the evidence on the trial which tended to inculpate the defendants.Cate, Jones & Sanborn, for plaintiffs in error.

Raymond, Lamoreux & Park and J. L. O'Connor, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WINSLOW, J. (after stating the facts).

In this case the state relied for conviction almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence. As to the defendant Henry there was, in addition to the circumstantial evidence, some proof of an admission of the fact, but as to Shepard Kollock the evidence was exclusively circumstantial. There are two legal principles applicable to such evidence, which are very well established: First, that each of the several circumstances upon which the conclusion of guilt necessarily depends must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and, second, that they must not only point with...