Mathley v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 26 April 1905
• Citation: 86 S.W. 988,120 Ky. 389
• Parties: MATHLEY v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

86 S.W. 988

120 Ky. 389

MATHLEY v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 26, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Daviess County.

"To be officially reported."

Robert Mathley was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Little & Slack, E. D. Guffy, and J. R. Hays, for appellant.

N. B Hays, Atty. Gen., and C. H. Morris, for the Commonwealth.

BARKER J.

The appellant, Robert Mathley, was indicted by the grand jury of Daviess county, charged with the murder of Emma Watkins. Upon trial he was found guilty by the jury, and his punishment fixed at death. To reverse the judgment based upon this verdict he has appealed to this court.

The facts necessary to illustrate the questions of law arising upon the record are as follows: The appellant, who is a widower, became enamoured of Emma Watkins, a girl of 17 or 18 years of age. According to the evidence, for a time, at least, they were engaged to be married, and perhaps (although this is not material) there had been illicit relations between them. It is further shown that he was exceedingly desirous of marrying the girl, and was probably jealous of her. Deceased had been employed in the home of appellant, who was keeping house with his mother, but at the time of the killing she was not in his service, but was visiting the house of William Warren, where the tragedy took place. On the 26th day of June, 1904, the appellant, Emma Watkins, James Gregston, Mrs. William Warren, and William Warren, were all at the house of the latter in Owensboro, Ky. James Gregston was showing some attention to Emma Watkins, but after a short while he and William Warren left the house, taking opposite directions. Appellant, after the departure of Gregston and Warren, sought to obtain the promise of the girl to marry him, but this she refused to give, saying, in substance, that she had loved him at one time, but since he had threatened to shoot her she no longer loved him. Without giving in detail their conversation, appellant said to the girl she might as well marry him, as she should not marry any one else. After being absent a short while, James Gregston returned to the house, whereupon the appellant, without any warning or apparent cause, drew a revolver, and fired two shots, one mortally wounding James Gregston, and the other killing Emma Watkins. Gregston ran out of the house, and fell in the street. The girl ran into the kitchen, and there fell dead. Appellant, pistol in hand, sat down on the kitchen floor beside the dead body of his victim, where he remained until arrested and disarmed by the police officers.

The theory of the commonwealth is that the killing was the result of jealousy; that of the defense that it was caused by insanity. Among the grounds for reversal it is urged that the court erred in admitting one of the witnesses (a physician) to testify that he was consulted professionally by Emma Watkins some time before her death, and that in response to a direct question from him she said she was pregnant, and had been so for three months. This is objected to as hearsay and, admitting for the purposes of the case that it is justly subject to that criticism, it was not prejudicial to the substantial rights of appellant, for the reason that Mrs William Warren had already testified, without objection, that the girl had made the same statement to her. Some time before her death, Will Gregston, a brother of James, while confined in jail, wrote several letters to Emma Watkins, which show that he also was in love with her, and that he claimed to have had illicit relations with her. These letters were taken from the possession of appellant at the time of his arrest. He admitted they were given him by Emma Watkins as they were received, and that he knew their contents. As these letters tend to establish a cause for jealousy on his part, and thus furnish a motive for the killing, they were clearly admissible in evidence.

Instructions Nos. 7 and 8, which are complained of, are as follows "No. 7. The court further instructs the jury that the law presumes every man...