People v. Campagna

• Decision Date: 16 June 1909
• Citation: People v. Campagna, 240 Ill. 378, 88 N.E. 797 (Ill. 1909)
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CAMPAGNA.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

240 Ill. 378

88 N.E. 797

PEOPLE

v.CAMPAGNA.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court, Stephenson County; R. S. Farrand, Judge.

Salvatore Campagna was convicted of murder, and brings error.Reversed.Bernard P. Barasa, for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and Louis H. Burrell, State's Atty., for the People.

CARTER, J.

The plaintiff in error upon a trial by jury in the circuit court of Stephenson county was found guilty of the murder of Felice Casata, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 14 years.

The deceased, Casata, was employed by the Illinois Central Railroad Company at Freeport to tend the lamps used on the semaphores and in other places in the railroad yards.In order to provide a place for him to work and keep the oil necessary for use, the company had located a railroad box car at the side of the tracks, and turned it into a workshop.In this car were two or more oil tanks holding considerable kerosene, and possibly other oil.About 300 feet westerly of this car, and on the same side of the tracks, was a small railroad telegraph office, known as West Junction.All of the main events referred to in the testimony took place on the afternoon of June 18, 1908, between this office and the city of Freeport, which is about a mile east of West Junction.The telegraph operator at this place, Paul Mandler, testified that he was notified about 4:37 p. m., by Lester Higley, a boy about 11 years old, who was fishing in a small pond near the office, that the oil car was on fire.Mandler testified that he ran to the car and found the door locked, and that he then ran back to the office, and got a key and unlocked the door.About 20 minutes thereafter Daniel Tierney, the section foreman, came to the scene, and about the same time Philip Casata, a brother of the deceased, came.It was not known at this time that a human being was in the burning car.Philip Casata asked the operator where his brother was, and was told that he had gone towards Freeport.The testimony is that Philip Casata took a ‘speeder’(a small three-wheel car for the use of one person upon the railroad), and went to Freeport to look for his brother.Between 6 and 7 o'clock that evening the chief of police of that city was notified and came down on a hand car, and a number of Italians, including plaintiff in error and Philip Casata, came about the same time.At or about the time the chief of police arrived a body was discovered lying face down in the burning car.After quenching the flames somewhat with water, the remains were taken out.It was found that only the skeleton was left, with only a small portion of the flesh on the breast, where it had been against an iron plate in the car.A watch and some keys, identified as belonging to Felice Casata, were also found on or near the remains.Mandler testified that he knew Felice Casata well, having seen him often at his work; that he saw him go into the oil car about seven minutes before he saw it was on fire.This was the last that Felice Casata was seen alive by any of the witnesses.No other proof than that already stated was offered to show that the remains found in the car were those of Felice Casata.We find nothing in the record to indicate that the skeleton was that of a person of the same height as the supposed deceased.

Counsel for plaintiff in error contends that it has not been shown that any crime was committed or that the person burned was Felice Casata.The rule is well settled in this and other jurisdictions that the corpus delicti may be proved in a prosecution for murder by presumptive or circumstantial evidence, where that is the best evidence obtainable, but great caution should be observed in acting upon it.Campbell v. People, 159 Ill. 9, 42 N. E. 123,50 Am. St. Rep. 134, and authorities there cited.We are not prepared to say that the evidence in this record was not sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury that the skeleton was that of Felice Casata.In view of our conclusion on another branch of the case, we deem it unnecessary to comment further on this question.

The evidence is uncontroverted on this record that the relations between plaintiff in error and Felice Casata were of a most friendly nature; that they were acquainted in the old country before they came here, and had always been the best of friends, and, indeed, some of the testimony is that they had treated each other like brothers, and used endearing Italian terms in their conversations.They had never been known to quarrel.No motive for the commission of the crime by plaintiff in error is suggested except that he wanted Felice Casata's position as lamp tender.Plaintiff in error did succeed to the position the day after the fire, but the testimony shows conclusively that he did not ask for the place, but was put there by the man in charge of that work, who testified that the plaintiff in error was the man best fitted for the place among those from whom he could pick.Plaintiff in error was working as one of the section hands on the railroad at and near West Junction.We should judge from the record that the pay he received as section hand was practically the same as that he would receive as lamp tender.

The argument that counsel for defendant in error present as showing that the decedent did not die by suicide or from injuries caused by an accidental explosion of the oil is that the car door was found locked by a spring lock on the outside; one key being in the possession of Mandler and the only other key to the car having been in the possession of the deceased, and having been found near the remains in the burned car.It appears from Mandler's testimony that there was another door to the car, but whether it was locked at the time no one testified, and there is no proof in the record as to whether the car had windows.If we assume that Felice Casata was murdered, the question remains: Does the evidence prove the plaintiff in error guilty of the crime?

In order to understand the testimony, a short description of the railroad yards will be of assistance.The telegraph office, known as West Junction, lies at the northwesterly part of the locality where the events occurred.Close to it is a pond of water and a culvert running underneath the track.There are two main tracks of the Illinois Central Railroad at this point.A few feet easterly of the telegraph office a switch track branches off to the north, and about 300 feet from said office, on the north side of the switch, the oil car was located.About 1500 feet east of the oil car an overhead bridge crosses the tracks.A little east of this bridge the switch track branches into 13 different switch tracks.The switch tracks and the two main tracks run along side by side for about three-quarters of a mile, when they again converge into three tracks near an organ factory.There are a few houses on the south side of the tracks near the organ factory, but apparentlythere are no houses near the tracks on either side between the overhead bridge and the telegraph office at West Junction.While the evidence on this record is not clear upon this point, the depot in Freeport appears to be located about two miles east of the organ factory.The tracks from West Junction to the organ factory run a little south of east.Plaintiff in error boarded at the house of Dominick Paulona, about a block and a half west of the organ factory, and about two blocks south of the main line of the railroad.The street that runs on the west side of Paulona's house does not appear to have been graded near the railroad, and from the end of the graded street two footpaths lead to the railroad tracks.Just west of these two paths are two large iron pipes which run northerly under the railroad tracks.They are apparently used for draining the water under the right of way from south to north, and empty into a low place or little gully north of the tracks.On June 18, 1898, the locality, except for the railroad tracks, appears to have been grown up with tall weeds and vegetation, and appeared considerably like open country outside a city.The plaintiff in error did not work the afternoon of June 18th.It is claimed he told one witness that he laid off because he was sick, and another that it was because it was a holiday.He testified that he laid off in order to have a letter written to his brother in Chicago, but that as he himself could not read or write, he had arranged with one Frank Marosa to write the letter for him that afternoon.He found Marosa, as we understand, at a brick office near the railroad tracks, near the depot in Freeport, about 3 o'clock on the afternoon in question, and they both testified that Marosa wrote the letter at that time, and directed it to the brother in Chicago.Plaintiff in error testified that after the letter was written he went to the post office, apparently a few blocks away, and mailed it.The envelope in which the letter was sent was identified by Marosa, and bears the stamp mark of the Freeport post office showing it was stamped 5 p. m. on the day in question.Marosa and plaintiff in error both testified that Campagna left with the letter between 3:30 and 4 o'clock that afternoon.After mailing the letter, plaintiff in error testified he went to Franz's saloon, and then followed along the city railway track westerly toward the organ factory; that he wanted to wash his feet, and wished a place that was not too public; that he went in and got a drink of water in a vinegar factory; that he went from there to the Illinois Central Railroad tracks, and followed them westerly to the iron pipes, where he washed his feet.He testified that, just before he reached the iron pipes, he passed two men, Bentz, and Goetz, at work on some cars on one of the switch tracks; that, having washed his feet in the little gully at the mouth of the iron pipes heretofore referred to, he put on his shoes and went in a...