People v. Cleminson

• Decision Date: 07 June 1911
• Citation: 95 N.E. 157,250 Ill. 135
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CLEMINSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

250 Ill. 135

95 N.E. 157

PEOPLE

v.CLEMINSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 19, 1911.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1911.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; William H. McSurely, Judge.

Haldane Cleminson was convicted of murder, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Burres & McKinley (Elijah U. Zoline, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John E. W. Wayman, State's Atty. (John E. Northup and William A. Rittenhouse, of counsel), for the People.

FARMER, J.

Plaintiff in error (who will hereafter be called defendant) was indicted in Cook county for the murder of his wife, Nora Jane Cleminson, in the city of Chicago, on the 30th day of May, 1909. The first, second, third, fifth, sixth, and seventh counts of the indictment charged the defendant murdered his wife by administering chloroform to her, and the fourth charged the death was caused by administering a poison, the character of which was to the grand jurors unknown. Defendant pleaded not guilty, and after a trial lasting substantially a month the jury found him guilty of murder, and fixed his punishment at imprisonment for life in the penitentiary. Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were overruled and judgment rendered on the verdict. This writ of error is sued out by defendant to reverse the judgment of conviction.

Defendant was married to Nora Jane Morgan in Michigan on Thanksgiving day, 1903. At that time both parties resided with their parents on farms near South Haven, Mich. Their first child was born in September, 1904. A few weeks after that event, defendant went to Chicago to study medicine. Shortly afterwards his wife, his mother, and father moved to Chicago, and the two families lived together about three years. Another son was born to defendant and his wife in June, 1906, and some time afterwards defendant, his wife, and children moved into a flat about eight blocks distant from the defendant's father and mother. Defendant was pursuing his medical studies and assisting in supporting his family by working at different kinds of employment. Defendant's family and that of his parents visited each other very often, and they usually had their dinners together on Sundays at the home of defendant's parents. In August or September, 1908, defendant and his wife moved to another flat about five blocks distant from his parents' home. Defendant graduated in medicine in 1908, and in September of that year engaged in the practice of his profession. About 5 o'clock in the morning of May 30, 1909, the defendant telephoned Dr. Hullhorst, who lived a few blocks distant, to come to his house. Dr. Hullhorst testified the defendant said to him over the telephone, ‘Come down to the house as soon as you can. It looks as if an earthquake had struck the place. We have been done up.’ Dr. Hullhorst went at once arriving at defendant's house about 10 minutes past 5. The door was not fastened, and the doctor walked in without knocking or ringing the bell. Dr. Hullhorst had attended defendant's wife when she gave birth to her second child. He testified when he went in the house defendant was lying on the floor in the dining room, dressed in pajamas and a bathrobe. He inquired of defendant what was the matter, and defendant replied, ‘We have done up. We have been robbed. We have been chloroformed.’ The doctor asked him where his wife was. He replied she was in the bedroom, and said, ‘I don't know what is the matter with her. I believe she is dead.’ The doctor went to the bedroom and found her body on the bed. She was dead, cold and rigid, and the doctor gave it as his opinion that she had been dead four or five hours. The doctor then went back in the room where defendant was and informed him his wife was dead. He asked defendant to tell him about it, and defendant said he did not know how it happened; that he awoke in the night and felt as if he had been sick and feverish all night; that he touched his wife with his foot and found she was cold; that he then jumped out of bed, and hardly knew what had happened since. The doctor testified he then examined defendant, felt his pulse, and found it was accelerated, fast, strong, and full. He had no fever, and the doctor did not then prescribe anything for him. There were no indications that he had been chloroformed and the doctor found no receptacle containing chloroform. Deceased was lying on her left side on the front of the bed, near the edge. Her head was thrown back slightly, and her mouth was open. The left hand was under her face and the right on her breast. Her legs were slightly flexed. On the back of the bed the covers were thrown back, and it appeared as if some one had occupied that part of the bed. The bed covers were over the body of the deceased up to the face, but were not over the face. Half of a napkin was found under the face of the deceased and another half under the sheet at the back of the bed, next the wall. They were apparently parts of the same napkin. Dr. Hullhorst smelled both pieces, but could detect no odor. On the sheet at the back of the bed was a darkcolored stain, but the doctor did not examine it carefully. He then talked again with defendant, who said, ‘This is tough,’ but that he could stand it if it were not for the boys. Defendant told the doctor if there was any occasion for an undertaker to call Fred Roberts. The doctor replied it was not a case for the undertaker, but for the coroner. He had previously notified the police station. Two police officers, Wood and Smith, arrived about 6 o'clock, while Dr. Hullhorst was still at defendant's house. Shortly afterwards defendant's mother and his wife's sister, Miss Cecelia Morgan, who boarded with defendant's parents, came. Later Roberts, the undertaker, came, but the police officers would not allow him to go into the house and take charge of the body. Dr. Hullhorst further testified that, when he entered defendant's residence, he found the drawers had been taken out of the furniture and papers and books scattered over the floor. In the dining room the drawers had been drawn out of the sideboard and linen scattered over the floor. In the bedroom the drawers had been taken out of the dresser and clothing scattered over the room. Defendant told the doctor they had been robbed of silverware and $40 or $50. Describing more fully defendant's condition when he found him lying on the floor, the doctor said he was gagging, trying to vomit, and crying, but he saw him vomit nothing but saliva. The doctor got him up and placed him on a conch. Afterwards he dressed. All the windows in the house were closed, except one, and that was open about an inch. The doctor gave it as his opinion the defendant was feigning the symptoms he manifested.

Policeman Wood testified he arrived at defendant's house about 5:45. He described how the drawers were pulled out of the furniture and their contents scattered over the floor, and the jewelry case open and empty. He testified there were a great many halfburnt matches scattered over the floor in all the rooms. When he arrived defendant was lying on the floor, but he did not talk to him until after he had gone into the bedroom and viewed the body of deceased. He described her position the same as Dr. Hullhorst. He testified he then went back into the room where defendant was and asked him to tell what had occurred; that defendant replied, ‘You are a reporter, and I will not talk with you,’ and turned his face away and gagged. He testified that he and his follow policeman made a systematic search of the house, and that they found footprints outside the house under the window of the bedroom where the body of Mrs. Cleminson lay. They then went into the house and procured defendant's left shoe and fitted it into the tracks that led up to the window. They then discovered that the track of the right foot was deeper than that of the left. They then procured the right shoe and placed it in the tracks, and found that it fitted them exactly. They examined the windows and screens to see if they had been forced open and found them intact, except one screen in the dining room window had been removed and was on the sidewalk. The witness then again asked defendant what had happened, and he replied, ‘Somebody must have been in the house,’ and inquired where they got in. The witness replied he did not know, and defendant said they must have gotten in through the window because the screen was out. The witness asked defendant what he had that burglars could take and what was missing, and defendant said his wife's engagement diamond ring, his stickpins, and $50 in money out of his pants pocket. Witness inquired where his pants were and defendant pointed to a chair and said he left them on the chair the night before. The witness found the pants folded up behind the chair on the floor, also a small, black leather pocketbook lying open beside them on the floor. The silver spoons were found by witness and his fellow policeman in the kitchen. When witness would ask defendant where the jewelry was kept he would reply that he was sick, and did not answer the inquiry. He continued to gag for a considerable time. His mother asked him to dress himself, and he finally did so. He talked a great deal to himself, or apparently to no particular person, about burglars and inquired why they came in there and killed such a sweet little woman when they were getting things in shape to enjoy life. At one time defendant went with his mother into the room where the body of his wife lay and said he wished they had got him instead of her. He told the witness that chloroform had been used, and said he could taste it in his mouth. Dr. Hervey, who was an assistant of defendant, came after the witness had arrived and defendant asked him to call an undertaker. That was about half-past 7. Hervey did so, but the witness told him it was no use until the coroner came there. Hervey asked witness if he could go into the room and...