People v. Gardiner

• Decision Date: 19 April 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14439.,14439.
• Citation: 135 N.E. 422,303 Ill. 204
• Parties: PEOPLE v. GARDINER.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

303 Ill. 204

135 N.E. 422

PEOPLE

v.GARDINER.

No. 14439.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 19, 1922.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Theodore Brentano, Judge.

William Gardiner was convicted of manslaughter, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded.

Robert E. Turney, of Chicago (Thomas E. Swanson, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson and Clyde C. Fisher, both of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

THOMPSON, J.

This writ of error is prosecuted to review a judgment of the criminal court of Cook county, finding plaintiff in error guilty of manslaughter and committing him to the penitentiary.

The evidence shows that plaintiff in error was in the office of one Welsh, a postal employee, in the afternoon of January 27, 1920; that Welsh had a revolver in his office; that plaintiff in error took the revolver and put it in his coat pocket; that he went from the office of Welsh to 3035 Indiana avenue, Chicago; that five or six physicians occupied a suite of officers at this number and that plaintiff in error frequently called on them; that he was addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors, and on several occasions he had requested these doctors to issue him prescriptions for whisky; that on this occasion he arrived about 7 o'clock p. m.; that he came to the office to see one of the doctors about some glasses that he had left there; that the doctors were busy and that he joked with the people who were sitting in the waiting room; that he was in a happy frame of mind; that the deceased, Dr. Robert S. Bentley, came from his office into the waiting room and stood leaning against the wall smoking a cigar; that plaintiff in error walked up to him and said in a jovial manner, ‘I want to show you a trick I played on Welsh’; that he pulled the revolver out of his pocket while he was saying this; that the revolver was discharged, the bullet striking deceased in the heart; that deceased groaned and fell to the floor; that plaintiff in error exclaimed, ‘I have shot my best friend! I did not know the gun was loaded! I would give $50,000 or my life if somebody would tell me that the doctor is not dead!’ that other physicians rushed out into the waiting room and examined deceased and told plaintiff in error that he was dead; that he sat down and cried, saying. ‘What have I done? What will I do? I have shot my best friend!’ that he remained in the waiting room until he was placed under arrest.

Plaintiff in error is a one-armed man, 51 years of age and had lived in Chicago about 25 years. He is an inventor of electrical appliances and has been connected with a number of storage battery companies throughout the country. The assistant state's attorney who conducted the prosecution examined plaintiff in error at great length with respect to his connection with certain battery companies which he had promoted, and sought to show that he had defrauded many people by selling them worthless stock in such companies. He also cross-examined him at great length with respect to this moral character, and sought to show that he had abandoned his family and had lived in an open state of adultery with a woman in Chicago. The cross-examination covers more than 30 pages of the printed abstract, and at least half of it was on matters wholly foreign to the issue. The character of the cross-examination was seriously prejudicial, and its manifest purpose was to wrongfully influence the jury. Not satisfied with this, the prosecuting attorney argued to the jury that plaintiff in error had swindled innocent people of their earnings on many different occasions and that he was otherwise a worthlesscharacter. He ridiculed the contention of plaintiff in error that he did not know the gun was loaded and that he was...