People v. Deitz
| Decision Date | 03 July 1891 |
| Citation | 86 Mich. 419,49 N.W. 296 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. DEITZ. |
Exceptions from circuit court, Ingham county; ERASTUS PECK, Judge.
A. A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and George F. Day, Pros. Atty., for the People. Q. A Smith, for defendant.
Deitz was informed against in the circuit court for the county of Ingham to the effect that on the 9th day of June, in the year 1890, at the township of Alaiedon, in Ingham county, he made an assault upon one Herman De Long with a large club, which he then and there had, and did strike said De Long several grievous and dangerous blows upon the head and other parts of the body, with the intent him, the said Herman De Long feloniously, willfully, and maliciously to do great bodily harm, less than the crime of murder. The case was tried in the Ingham circuit court, before the Honorable ERASTUS PECK circuit judge, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict of guilty of assault, but not guilty with the intent to do great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. The respondent brings the case here upon exceptions before sentence.
It appears from the record before us that one Dr. L. R. Chaddock, who had retired from practice as a physician, was the owner of 160 acres of land in the township of Alaiedon, which fronted on a highway running north and south, and that upon each of the 80-acre tracts there were a residence, barns, and other outhouses; that prior to April 1, 1890, one Alfred Barnes, a son-in-law of Dr. Chaddock, had been in possession of the south 80-acre tract or farm as a tenant; that he had been notified by his father-in-law to quit the possession of the premises on the 1st day of April, 1890, and that he soon thereafter removed therefrom, but left upon the premises certain personal property. He claims he had an arrangement with the doctor by which he might remove such property after that date. It appears that there had been some unpleasant feeling between Dr. Chaddock and his son-in-law Barnes prior to the 9th day of June, 1890. It also appears that for several years Dr. Chaddock had a man in his employment working upon his farm by the name of William Deitz, the respondent in this case; and that his son-in-law Barnes also had a hired servant, who had worked the farm he occupied for several years, whose name was Herman De Long. Barnes had been taking away his personal property from time to time, and on the 9th day of June, 1890, went with his hired man, De Long, to draw away a load of wood. To reach the wood-lot it was necessary for him first to leave the highway by way of a lane running east and west, passing the barn, and thence proceeding to the wood-lot, which was on the rear of the 80. After he had gone to the wood-lot, Chaddock and the respondent, Deitz, went onto a filed in the rear of the barn with a team, accompanied by a grandson by the name of Claude Hughson, a lad about 13 years of age, to get a load of stone for the purpose of placing them by a tile drain which he was constructing. While there Barnes and De Long came towards them from the wood-lot with their load of wood, whereupon Chaddock and Deitz went to a gate, which was at the corner of the barn, and when they arrived there told Barnes to stop his team, and an altercation ensued, Barnes claiming that Chaddock drew a revolver, and, cursing him, told him that he would force him to his knees; that he asked him to open the gate, and he replied that he could not pass through that gate; that he got off the load, and went to open the gate, and Chaddock flourished the revolver, and threatened to shoot him; that he passed him, and swung the gate open, and told his man to drive through, which he did; that he thereupon went to get upon his load, and the doctor struck him with his revolver, which he warded off with his left wrist. It appears also from Barnes' statement that he had a revolver and drew it about the time he got off his load to open the gate, so that they were both armed with deadly weapons; that when the doctor struck him with the revolver he seized him, and attempted to disarm him, threw him upon the ground, and in the struggle dropped his own revolver, and while he was upon the ground with the doctor he called upon the respondent, telling him to Thereupon De Long alighted upon the ground, Deitz picked up a club, and struck De Long over the head a couple of times, and then picked up the revolver which Barnes had thrown upon the ground, discharged it at De Long, and then turned and ran. De Long pursued him a short distance, and returned to the wagon, and they got on and drove away. The doctor and Deitz claim that the doctor went to the gate, and spoke to Barnes, raising his hand, saying, "I wish you to give attention; I don't want you to come on this place any more;" and that Barnes got off the wagon, and attacked the doctor with a revolver; that he threw the doctor to the ground, and beat him across the nose with his revolver, threw his own revolver to De Long, who had descended from the load, and that De Long thereupon attacked Deitz, and that he struck him in self-defense. He says that when De Long got off of the load he threw a stick of wood at him, which hit him on the leg; he then started towards Barnes and the doctor, and he (Deitz) told him not to interfere with them; that Barnes threw a revolver to De Long, and told him to shoot, calling him an opprobrious name; that De Long took up the pistol and shot, and he picked up a club, and hit him across the arms, and knocked the revolver out of his hands; and that he then made for him (Deitz) the second time, and he (Deitz) struck him over the head; De Long dropped to his knees, and went for Deitz the third time, swearing that he would kill him; and that he struck him again, and he fell to the ground, dropped the revolver, and he picked it up and ran. The lad called Hughson saw a part of the fracas, but was not in position to see Barnes when he had the doctor down. The affray was also witnessed by some ladies, who were sitting upon the porch of a house standing upon the west side of the highway, at a distance of 35 to 40 rods, there being a hollow or declivity in the intervening space.
In the course of the trial the prosecuting attorney undertook to show that the respondent, Deitz, had some trouble with De Long, about three years before the occurrence narrated, at one Taylor's, where they were threshing. This testimony was offered by the prosecutor as bearing upon Deitz's intent at the time this trouble complained of occurred. Objection was made to the introduction of this testimony, and the court ruled that they might show that there had existed trouble between Deitz and De Long three years before, at the time of the threshing, but he further permitted the prosecutor to show that a threat was made at that time by Deitz, and that he drew a knife on De Long at that time. On cross-examination of De Long, who testified that he made a threat and drew a knife, it appeared that there was a party of threshers doing work at Mr. Taylor's with a machine; that De Long was employed in hauling grain from the field; that Deitz was employed upon a table or platform cutting bands, and that he was furnished with a knife for that purpose; that during the threshing Barnes and one Chaddock, a son of Dr. Chaddock, were having a fight with each other; that thereupon they stopped the thresher, and the men gathered round the combatants; that Deitz was standing upon this platform with his knife in his hand when De Long came running up towards the combatants, and that Deitz made a threat to do him bodily harm if he put his hands on the combatants; that he had no intention of laying hands on them; that he was standing upon the ground and Deitz upon the platform when he made this threat; that they had had no trouble or words before that time, and never after, until the occasion referred to on the 9th of June.
It was not error for the court to permit specific acts to be given in evidence. It was competent for the prosecutor to show that the previous relations between the parties were not friendly or that they had had difficulties with each other, and specific acts of that character may be given in evidence between the respondent and the person assaulted or whose property is injured, where intent is essential to the offense charged. People v. Potter, 5 Mich. 8; Dillin v. People, 8 Mich. 366; People v. Bemis, 51 Mich. 423, 16 N.W. 794; People v. Eaton, 59 Mich. 559, 26 N.W. 702. A motion was made to strike out the testimony of Mr. De Long relative to the occurrence at the threshing, but the court denied it. We think he erred in this. The testimony of De Long shows that what happened there did not amount even to an assault. It did not show that he had a present intention of inflicting any injury upon him. The threat was conditional, and nothing came of it. The whole testimony with reference to what occurred at the threshing should have been excluded. He did not draw a knife upon De Long. He stood there with the knife with which he cut the bands in his hands, and merely said to...
To continue reading
Request your trial