Kraimer v. State
| Decision Date | 21 March 1903 |
| Citation | 117 Wis. 350,93 N.W. 1097 |
| Parties | KRAIMER v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Price County; John K. Parish, Judge.
Douglas Kraimer was convicted of crime, and brings error. Reversed.Smith & Smith (Schweppe & Urquart, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
L. M. Sturdevant, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Douglas Kraimer was convicted in the circuit court of Price county of an assault upon one Peter Isaacson, being armed with a dangerous weapon, and with intent to kill and murder said Isaacson, and brings this writ of error to reverse the judgment. No detailed statement of facts is necessary. It appeared by the evidence that Peter Isaacson was shot with a rifle while he was mowing marsh hay near Deer creek, in Price county, on the morning of July 22, 1901. No one saw the person who fired the shot. Isaacson and Kraimer lived within about 20 rods of each other, on small clearings in the woods on the bank of Elk river. Both left their homes on the morning in question in boats to cut marsh hay, Isaacson going up the river about half a mile to Deer creek, and Kraimer going down the river to Grassy Lake, and taking his rifle with him in the boat. Isaacson was shot through the body at about 10 o'clock in the morning, the shot appearing to come from a clump of alder bushes on the edge of the marsh where he was mowing. He succeeded in getting to his boat, and paddling down stream to his house, where he met Kraimer coming up stream with a boat load of hay at about noon. Kraimer denied the shooting. It appeared that a place was found in the alder bushes where some person had apparently stood, and an empty rifle shell was found at this place which corresponded in size with the shells used in Kraimer's rifle, and bore certain peculiar marks which were claimed to be similar to the marks made upon a shell by the firing pin of Kraimer's rifle. There was also evidence tending to show some bad feeling on the part of Kraimer towards Isaacson.
The first contention made by the plaintiff in error is that the verdict is unsupported by the evidence. As to this claim it must be sufficient to say that after careful examination we are satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the submission of the case to the jury.
The claim is also made that the venue was not proven. It certainly would have been more satisfactory had the place of the shooting been proven to have been in Price county by more definite and direct evidence. However, it appears that a map of certain sections of land was introduced in evidence, which sections were identified as being located in Price county, and that the place of the shooting was positively identified by the witnesses as being located upon the territory covered by this map. We hold that this is sufficient proof of the venue.
It is alleged as error that M. Barry, Esq., a member of the bar, was allowed, against objection, to assist the district attorney in the trial. Soon after the trial began, it appeared that Mr. Barry was assisting the district attorney in the trial, and the plaintiff in error objected thereto. The objection was overruled by the court; the bill of exceptions containing the following statement: “It appearing that M. Barry is the partner of the district attorney, and that he is not under pay, and is without bias in the matter, and not employed by any private person, and is assisting the district attorney with his consent.” Section 4504, Rev. St. 1898, provides that “the law-partner of any district attorney, may, at the request of the district attorney, without fee or compensation therefor, assist the district attorney in the prosecution of any case on the part of the state”; and we think that the facts stated in the bill as above quoted fairly bring the case within the statute.
The wife of the plaintiff in error was offered as a witness on his behalf, and was not allowed to be sworn. It is well settled that a wife cannot testify either for or against her husband in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grabowski v. State
...W. 759;Crawford v. State, 98 Wis. 623, 74 N. W. 537, 67 Am. St. Rep. 829;Miller v. State, 106 Wis. 162, 81 N. W. 1020;Kraimer v. State, 117 Wis. 352, 358, 93 N. W. 1097. Much less were her statements or declarations competent evidence. So the court properly excluded receipts of the wife to ......
-
State v. Byrne
... ... Holmes ... et al., 118 Cal. 444, 50 P. 675; Sewell v ... People, 189 Ill. 174, 59 N.E. 583; Feddern v ... State, 79 Neb. 651, 113 N.W. 127; State v. Beedle ... (Mo.) 180 S.W. 888; Hughes v. State, 109 Wis ... 397, 85 N.W. 333, 336; Kraimer v. State, 117 Wis ... 350, 93 N.W. 1097; State v. Starr et ux., 52 La ... Ann. 610, 26 So. 998; 17 C.J. 219 ... ...
-
Davis v. State
...the time, and gave a similar description of the place. This testimony would, we think, bring the case within the rule of Kraimer v. State, 117 Wis. 350, 93 N. W. 1097,Grabowski v. State, 126 Wis. 447, 105 N. W. 805, and Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 10 South. 815. In proving the former conv......
-
Rice v. State
...[5] Where such evidence of a former conviction is admitted, the defendant must be allowed to make a general explanation. Kraimer v. State, 117 Wis. 350, 93 N. W. 1097;Benedict v. State, 190 Wis. 266, 208 N. W. 934;Remington v. Judd, 186 Wis. 338, 202 N. W. 679. However, because of the natur......