Parke v. Dennard
Decision Date | 18 October 1928 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 924 |
Parties | PARKE v. DENNARD. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; Thomas E. Knight, Judge.
Action by Myrtle Dennard, as administratrix of the estate of Randolph Dennard, deceased, against Clifford W. Parke. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The refusal of requested instructions covered by those given in not error.
The following were charges given for plaintiff:
This charge was refused to defendant:
A. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that the fact, if it be a fact, that defendant shot the deceased in the back, does not deprive defendant of the benefit of his plea of self-defense, if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence that defendant did not know which way deceased back was turned.
Defendant was asked this question:
"Are there any other conspiracies against your life that you know of?"
The action of the court in sustaining objection to this question is made the basis of the eighth assignment of error.
Defendant offered to introduce in evidence certified copies of indictment and judgment entry in the criminal prosecution against defendant. The action of the court in sustaining plaintiff's objection to the introduction of the documents is made the basis of assignments 23 and 24.
Hobbs, Craig & Brown, of Selma, for appellant.
Reese & Reese, of Selma, and Hill, Hill, Whiting, Thomas & Rives, of Montgomery, for appellee.
Appellant, Clifford W. Parke, on the night of October 4, 1926, between the hours of six and seven o'clock, shot and killed Randolph Dennard. The shooting occurred at the home of Parke, in Selma. Appellee, Myrtle Dennard, is the widow of Randolph Dennard, and as administratrix of her husband's estate, instituted this suit against Parke under our Homicide Statute (section 5696, Code of 1923) to recover damages for the alleged wrongful killing of her intestate. There was verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $20,000, from which defendant prosecutes this appeal.
Defendant interposed pleas of autrefois acquit, former jeopardy, and res adjudicata. These pleas were based upon defendant's acquittal and discharge upon his plea of insanity of the offense of murder of plaintiff's intestate after due indictment, arraignment, and trial for the offense.
The ruling of the trial court sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to these pleas is supported by the decided weight of authority as well as sound reasoning. 17 Corpus Juris, pp. 981-2; 16 Corpus Juris, pp. 235-6. The case of Phillips v. Kelly, 29 Ala. 635, is, in principle, in harmony with the weight of authority as above indicated. See, also, Kansas City R.R. Co. v. Sanders, 98 Ala. 293, 13 So. 57.
Issue was joined upon the plea of the general issue, and special pleas of self-defense, defense of his wife, and insanity.
Plaintiff's demurrer to plea D--defense of defendant's home--was sustained, and this ruling is assigned for error. This plea charges that defendant's "right to the privacy security, and control of his home was, or reasonably appeared to be, in imminent danger of being destroyed by plaintiff's intestate." There is no averment that defendant or any member of his family was in any peril or that any felony was about to be committed. As held by this court in Lewis v. State, 178 Ala. 26, 59 So. 577, a person has "no right to kill to prevent a mere trespass, which is unaccompanied by imminent danger of great bodily harm or felony, and which does not produce in his mind the reasonable belief of such danger." To like effect are the cases of Carroll v. State, 23 Ala. 28, 58 Am.Dec. 282, and Bray v. State, 16 Ala.App. 433, 78 So. 463. The case of Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 21 So. 214, relied on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Sherrill
... ... v ... Thombs, 204 Ala. 678, 683, 87 So. 205; Southern ... Railway Co. v. Montgomery, 229 Ala. 456, 157 So. 854; ... Parke v. Dennard, 218 Ala. 209, 118 So. 396; ... Randle v. Birmingham Railway, Light & Power Co., 169 ... Ala. 314, 53 So. 918 ... The ... ...
-
Deloney v. State
... ... Rep. 193; Manning v. State, 217 Ala. 357, 116 So ... 360; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 39, 95 So. 171, ... and authorities cited; Parke v. Dennard, 218 Ala ... 209, 118 So. 396; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., v ... Hoomes, 219 Ala. 563, 122 So. 686 ... The ... objections of ... ...
-
Mount Vernon-Woodberry Mills v. Little
... ... 1, given at the request of plaintiff, was, on the authority ... of Riley v. Denegre, 201 Ala. 41, 77 So. 335, ... expressly approved in Parke v. Dennard, 218 Ala ... 209, 118 So. 396, 400, but it is to be noted that the plea of ... justification in both of these cases alleged "freedom ... ...
-
Polmatier v. Russ
... ... See Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Porter, 181 F.Supp. 81 (D.D.C.1960); Parke v. Dennard, 218 Ala. 209, 118 So. 396 (1928); McIntyre v. Sholty, 121 Ill. 660, 13 N.E. 239 (1887); Vosnos v. Perry, 43 Ill.App.3d 834, 2 ... ...
-
THE CORPORATE INSANITY DEFENSE.
...1011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956) (wrongful death); Bolen v. Howard, 452 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Ky. 1970) (shooting). (526) See, e.g., Parke v. Dennard, 118 So. 396, 399 (Ala. 1928); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Porter, 181 F. Supp. 81, 88 (D.D.C. 1960); Vosnos v. Perry, 357 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ill. App. Ct......