Montgomery v. State
Decision Date | 17 April 1906 |
Citation | 128 Wis. 183,107 N.W. 14 |
Parties | MONTGOMERY v. STATE. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Monroe County; J. J. Fruit, Judge.
Samuel Montgomery was convicted of murder, and he brings error.Reversed.
The plaintiff in error, hereafter called the defendant, was convicted before the circuit court of Monroe county of having murdered his wife, Blanche Montgomery, on the 30th day of May, 1903, and prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment.A motion by the defendant for change of venue on account of the prejudice of the people was first interposed and overruled, after which successive pleas in bar and abatement were overruled, and the case proceeded to trial upon a plea of not guilty.It appeared by the evidence that the defendant was a farmer who lived upon a farm five miles east and a quarter mile north of the village of Warrens, Monroe county, Wis.He was about 41 years of age at the time of the alleged murder, had been twice married, and lived with his daughter Nina, aged 16 years, the child of his first wife.He was a man somewhat addicted to the use of liquor, but was not what would be called a drunkard, although he was shown to have committed several minor offenses while under the influence of liquor.His second wife, Blanche Montgomery, the deceased, to whom he was married in the year 1900, was about 25 years of age at the time of her death, and weighed about 130 pounds.She was a country school teacher, and appears to have taught school at various places in the vicinity of her husband's residence a considerable part of the time after her marriage.She was a nervous and excitable woman, of uncertain temper.Very little appears as to the relations of the parties after the marriage, but it does appear that the defendant had suspected his wife of infidelity with other men, and had some letters in his possession written by his wife to him, in which she confessed intimacy with other men.Montgomery testified that he never believed these statements, but still it appears that there was some excited talk between them about these matters at times, and that the defendant preserved them and threatened to show them to the father of the deceased.The school which the deceased was teaching closed on Friday, May 29, 1903, and the defendant on that day drove from his farm to Warrens, left his team there and went down to Stowell, where his wife had been teaching school, stayed with her all night at Stowell, and on the following day the two came back to Warrens by rail.They arrived at Warrens early in the day and stayed there until late in the afternoon, visiting some friends, Mr. and Mrs. Gray.At about 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon they started for home with a two-horse team hitched to an open singleseated buggy, or road wagon, which had side springs and a high back, but no top.The deceased appeared at that time to be in good health.They had both drunk some beer during the day, and the defendant had a small bottle partly filled with whisky with him, but it did not appear that either of them were intoxicated.The road from Warrens to the defendant's residence ran over a comparatively level piece of ground, and ran straight east about five miles and then turned to the north.There was a slight hill about one-half mile east of Warrens, and at several places on the road there were swampy pieces of ground and the roadway was made of corduroy.Part of the road was exceedingly sandy, but a part was hard.There was a telephone line running from Warrens as far east as the defendant's residence, and telephones at the following residences along the road, viz.: (1) At Beck's, or the “Prairie Farm,” 1 3/4 miles from Warrens; (2) at Barden's residence, about a mile further on; (3) at Andrew Scott's residence, about 3 1/3 miles from Warrens; (4) at Proviance's, about 3 3/4 miles from Warrens; (5) at George Green's residence, 5 miles east of Warrens; lastly, at the residence of the defendant.These telephones were all on one common line, so that a call by any one on the line would ring the bells in the other houses.The death of Blanche Montgomery was caused by violence, which she received either intentionally or accidentally upon the road home from Warrens, or within a few moments after her arrival at home.
The defendant testified as to this trip, substantially as follows: That they started out towards home, and as they went along he, the defendant, commenced to read some letters which they had received in the mail, and that while he was doing this his wife asked for the whisky bottle, which was not over one-third full, saying that she felt kind of faint; that she took a drink and he took a drink, and that he threw the bottle away; that then she caught him around the neck with her arms, and told him that she had been wicked, and told him about her improper relations with a man at Stowell; that then he took the letter out of his pocket, and she asked him not to send it to her father, and he told her that if she didn't stop telling so many lies he would send it, and she asked him to destroy it, and he said he was going to keep it, and that she tried to grab it, and when she could not she“clutched” right into his face; that he caught hold of her arm and asked her if she was drunk or crazy, and held her, and she stopped struggling, and after about 10 rods she either started to jump out of the buggy or fell out, as the horses were walking, and he jumped out and helped her in, and she acted kind of dazed, and he asked her what was the matter, but she didn't answer; that they then drove along a little ways, when he filled his pipe and lighted it, and she looked as if she was going to faint away, and he put his arm around her and she leaned against him; he started the horses at a trot, and took the whip to start them faster, and as he returned the whip to the socket she pitched right forward and he thought her face struck the “ex” of the buggy near the hub, and she fell onto the ground and the buggy ran over her, and he stopped the team as quick as he could, jumped out, and went back and picked her up; that she had some bruises on her nose and lip, and he led her back to the buggy, and when she got close to the buggy she commenced to tear around, tried to get away, and “hollered,” frightened the team so that he had to run and catch them and tie them to a telephone post, and his wife started back toward Warrens, and as soon as he got the horses tied he ran and caught her and led her back to the buggy; that she tore her hair and “hollered” some, and that he got her to the buggy after a while and she started toward home, and then he got her to the buggy again and she said, “Are we pretty near home?” and he said, “We will be pretty soon,” and she climbed into the buggy, and he untied the horses and got in and started for home with the horses on the run; that he knew there was something wrong; that he thought the liquor had gone to her head; that he knew she had hurt herself, and he thought the best thing would be to get her home; that this occurrence was just west of the “Prairie Farm.”He further testified that after she got into the buggy she sat down leaning towards him with her head against him on his right side; that they proceeded until within about three-fourths of a mile of defendant's house, near the Green residence, when she raised up and wanted to sit up, and said she felt all right; that her nose was bleeding after she left the “Prairie Farm,” and she held her handkerchief to it and the handkerchief became soaked with blood, and he took his own out of his pocket and gave it to her just as they were crossing a bridge near the Green farm, and after they crossed the bridge the team swung off to the right a little; that he straightened the horses up into the road and started up fast, and reached out for the whip, and as he did so his wife fell out of the buggy in between the wheels; that he grabbed for her with his right hand; that his hold broke loose and then he grabbed for her leg; that she finally fell onto the ground and was dragged some distance, the horses running, and that he stopped the horses as soon as he could, and himself fell out of the buggy, the hind wheel passing over him; that he still had hold of the lines, and stopped the horses and cramped them across the road, and ran and got his wife, carried her in his arms and lifted her into the buggy on the left-hand side of the seat, and drove towards home holding his wife with her face on his breast; that he drove as fast as he could from there to the corduroy east of Green's, slowed up across the corduroy, and then drove fast till he reached home, and that his wife was unconscious during this time, as he thought.He further testified that when he got home he drove up to the house, and Nina came out, and he took his wife out of the buggy, had one arm around her body, and they walked into the house, and after he got into the house they got some water to wash her face, which was covered with blood; that Nina took care of the team while he bathed his wife's face, and found that her one eye was swelled shut and her face was bruised; that he thought she revived, that he laid her on the bed and went to the telephone and called Dr. Sidell, and told him to come out as quick as he could; that his wife recognized the telephone ring and asked him what he was ringing for, and he said for the doctor; that soon after Nina came in, and his wife called her by name and wanted to get up off the bed, and he helped her out of the bedroom to the water pail; that he thought she used her lower limbs; that she stood on her feet without help; that they gave her a drink of water, and she sat down in a chair, and she asked Nina if she was at home, and spoke of a little colt which she wanted to see, and he told Nina to go and drive the colt up from the pasture, and Nina started out, but just after she started his wife called Nina, and he went to...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Miller v. State
...a correct request is not based on the proper ground. We agree with counsel for the accused, Miller, that the rule in Montgomery v. State, 128 Wis. 183, 107 N. W. 14, is to that effect, and if not it should be sufficiently developed to meet the case. That admissions of one of two or more co-......
-
State v. Comstock
...and has never been acquitted or convicted of or punished for the commission of these two felony charges. Relying on Montgomery v. State, 128 Wis. 183, 195, 107 N.W. 14 (1906), Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 501, 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2542, 81 L.Ed.2d 425 (1984), and Serfass v. United States, 420 ......
-
DiLlon v. State
...to perpetrate a crime or misdemeanor not amounting to a felony, the charge requested should have been given. Montgomery v. State, 128 Wis. 183, 197, 107 N. W. 14;Duthey v. State, 131 Wis. 178, 182, 111 N. W. 222, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1032, and cases cited; Terrill v. State, 95 Wis. 276, 70 N......
-
Hedger v. State
...of the accused. Lam Yee v. State, 132 Wis. 527, 112 N. W. 425 and cases; Lonergan v. State, 111 Wis. 453, 87 N. W. 455;Montgomery v. State, 128 Wis. 183, 107 N. W. 14;Prinslow v. State, 140 Wis. 131, 121 N. W. 637. The assignments of error relative to the admission and exclusion of evidence......