Manasco v. State
Decision Date | 17 June 1912 |
Citation | 148 S.W. 1025,104 Ark. 397 |
Parties | MANASCO v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Appeal from Howard Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge affirmed.
STATEMENT BY THE COURT.
On the 8th day of January, 1912, in Howard County, Arkansas, Walter Manasco killed T. D. Patterson by stabbing him with a knife. Patterson was a merchant at Umpire, In addition to his regular store, he had a warehouse a short distance away, but not connected with the store. The appellant, with one Park Hunter, was standing down on the warehouse gallery; Patterson went down there, and asked the boys what they were doing. According to the testimony of appellant, Patterson said "Let me lock the door," and he locked the door and started back when appellant said: "Don't I owe you ninety cents?" Patterson replied: "Yes." Appellant then handed him a dollar bill, and he handed appellant ten cents. Appellant then said: "By G , we are even, and we?" Patterson said: "Yes." Appellant said: "We will stay that way." Patterson said: "All right," and turned and went back in his store, and appellant and Park Hunter also went back in the store. Appellant and Park Hunter remained there a little while, until Mr. Stone, the blacksmith, called appellant to assist in shoeing appellant's mare. Then he and Park Hunter went over with Mr. Stone, the blacksmith, and according to the testimony of Mr. Stone, while they were going to the shop the following took place:
The appellant and Park Hunter, in their testimony, denied that such conversation took place between them and witness Stone.
After the mare was shod, the two boys, Walter Manasco and Park Hunter, left witness Stone's shop together, and went into Patterson's store together. The witness describes what took place in the store when the boys first went in before the fatal encounter as follows:
A witness, Arthur Hunter, a half-brother of Park Hunter, who was in the store when appellant and Park Hunter returned to the store from the blacksmith shop, testified as follows:
A witness on behalf of the State testified that he saw Walter come down Patterson's steps after he heard of the cutting. Walter "was walking tolerably pert," says the witness, "and as he come down the steps I heard him say, 'He needs his throat cut,' or 'ought to have his G d throat cut."
Appellant testified, in part, as follows as to the fatal encounter:
Park Hunter and Bill Manasco corroborated, substantially, the testimony of Walter Manasco, and their testimony tends to show that when Patterson started towards Walter Manasco, Bill Manasco told Patterson that Walter didn't want to fight him, and there was no use of having any trouble, but that didn't stop Patterson; that Bill Manasco endeavored to get Walter back out of the way. The testimony showed that Walter Manasco, at the time of the killing, was seventeen years of age and weighed 129 pounds; Patterson was over fifty years of age, and weighed about 200 pounds. The testimony showed that Walter Manasco had taken two drinks that day, but he was not drunk.
The above are substantially the material facts upon which the appellant was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree. He was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for eleven years.
The court, at the request of the State, among others, gave the following instructions, of which appellant complains, towit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gibson v. State
... ... Atkins v. State, 16 Ark. 568; ... Blair v. State, 69 Ark. 558, 64 S.W. 948; ... Velvin v. State, 77 Ark. 97, 90 S.W. 851; ... Wheatley v. State, 93 Ark. 409, 125 S.W ... 414; Ferguson v. State, 95 Ark. 428, 129 ... S.W. 813; Taylor v. State, 99 Ark. 576, 139 ... S.W. 285; Manasco v. State, 104 Ark. 397, ... 148 S.W. 1025. Having abused Wise and made a threatening ... demonstration against him, Gibson had no right to fire the ... fatal shot without having first made the effort required by ... the law to withdraw from the combat; and, as the requested ... instruction ... ...
-
Price v. State
...shown is at most manslaughter. Kirby's Dig., §§ 1777-8. No malice is shown. 93 Ark. 409. 2. The court erred in its charge to the jury. 104 Ark. 397; Id. 409. 3. The remarks of the judge were prejudicial. 108 Ark. 129. 4. Improper evidence was admitted. Wm. L. Moose, Attorney General, and Jn......
-
Smith v. State
... ... appellant accepted the court's invitation to further ... argue to the jury the issues raised by the additional ... instructions. The additional instructions correctly stated ... the law and the giving of them did not, under the ... circumstances, constitute reversible error. Manasco ... ...
-
Durden v. State, 3-978A234
...argument on new or different principles of law contained in supplemental instructions. 15 A.L.R.2d 490 (1951). In Manasco v. State (1912) 104 Ark. 397, 148 S.W. 1025, the court amended an instruction after argument had been closed. On appeal it was urged that re-argument should have been pe......