Mayfield v. State

Decision Date26 April 1910
Citation126 N.W. 15,142 Wis. 661
PartiesMAYFIELD ET AL. v. STATE.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Monroe County; E. C. Higbee, Judge.

George E. Mayfield and others were convicted of assault and battery, and they bring error. Affirmed.Masters, Graves & Masters and G. M. Perry, for plaintiffs in error.

F. L. Gilbert, Atty. Gen., and Thorwald P. Abel, Dist. Atty., for the State.

TIMLIN, J.

The plaintiffs in error, hereinafter called defendants, were, with three others not before this court, proceeded against for assault with intent to do great bodily harm upon one Allen, and convicted of assault and battery. Defendants contend that the court erred (1) in refusing to grant them a separate trial; (2) in refusing to discharge the defendants; (3) in refusing to require the state to elect; (4) in rulings upon evidence; (5) in giving and refusing instructions. Allen was a man about 57 years of age, a vagrant who drifted into the village of Cataract, and was hanging around Mayfield's saloon and sleeping in his barn, where Baumel and Johnson who also slept in this barn reported that there was stolen from them while they slept a watch and some money. According to testimony on the part of the state, Mayfield, with others, came into Masterson's saloon, found Allen there. Mayfield accused him of this theft, laid hands on him, shook him. Masterson forbade anything further in his saloon, whereupon Mayfield took Allen out into the street, and said: “Let us kill the ______. Let us make him dig up.” The others who were with Mayfield then assaulted and beat Allen for the purpose of making him confess. Hebron from a nearby hotel heard this fracas in the street, and came over. Mayfield retired some little distance. Allen by this time was severely beaten by several men in this crowd and lay on the ground, while the blows which were administered to him and the oaths and vulgar language could be heard for a distance. Finally Allen called for Mayfield, and said he would confess to him. Mayfield came in response, and said: “If you have got the watch give it up; * * * tell where it is, and I will see that the boys won't hurt you.” Allen then went to the barn with the crowd, including Mayfield and Hebron, and showed them where the watch which he had stolen was secreted, and Mayfield then urged him to give up the money, and threatened him with violence, and then leaving Allen in the hands of the others of the assaulting party left the barn, and commenced to look elsewhere for the money. The assaults upon Allen in the barn continued, Hebron remaining there. After a little time Hebron left, was absent a few minutes, and returned. The attacking party placed a rope around Allen's neck and threatened to hang him, also to drown him, and pulled on the rope. While the rope was around his neck, Hebron and one Davis stripped Allen of his shoes and clothing, except a shirt and vest. Allen was bleeding, bruised, and exhausted, and his condition appeared alarming, when one of the assaulting party said: “Is the son of a b____ dead?” Hebron, who is a physician, felt of and timed Allen's pulse, and said, He is all right.” After this Allen was taken down from the barn by the attacking party into the street, and it was said they were going to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 30 Diciembre 1922
    ...Henderson v. Com. 98 Va. 797, 34 S.W. 881.) The court erred in authorizing a separate trial on the motion of the prosecution. (Mayfield v. State, 142 Wis. 661; Moore v. People, 31 Colo. 336, 73 P. 30; v. State, 51 Ga. 374; Barrett v. People, 220 Ill. 304, 77 N.E. 224.) The names of two of t......
  • Day v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 15 Noviembre 1950
    ...informed against for offenses arising out of the same transaction is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Mayfield v. State, 142 Wis. 661, 126 N.W. 15. 'The case presents the peculiar situation that the offenses charged against the defendants, though different in degree, necess......
  • Pollack v. State
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 6 Marzo 1934
    ...Ordinarily, whether or not defendants shall be tried separately lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Mayfield v. State, 142 Wis. 661, 126 N. W. 15;Novkovic v. State, 149 Wis. 665, 135 N. W. 465. It is not the tactical position taken by counsel for the separate defendants tha......
  • State v. Vincent
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1930
    ...trials in such cases rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Emery v. State, 101 Wis. 627, 78 N. W. 145;Mayfield v. State, 142 Wis. 661, 126 N. W. 15;Novkovic v. State, 149 Wis. 665, 135 N. W. 465. In view of the fact that there were no representations made to the court necessitat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT