People v. Gosch
| Decision Date | 02 July 1890 |
| Citation | 46 N.W. 101,82 Mich. 22 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. GOSCH. |
Error to circuit court, Kent county.
William F. McKnight and John A. Fairfield (Birney Hoyt, of counsel,) for appellant.
W. J. Stuart, Pros. Atty., (Stuart Knappen & Weaver, of counsel,) for the People.
The respondent is charged, jointly with Charles Brearly, with having killed and murdered one Daniel Sinclair, at the township of Brown, Kent county, on August 13, 1889. They took separate trials. On a trial had in the circuit court of that county, the respondent was found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced on October 16, 1889, to imprisonment in the state-prison at Jackson for the term of 12 years. The case comes to this court by writ of error.
The theory of the people on the trial below was that on August 12, 1889, one Peter Sinclair, a deputy-sheriff of Kent county, and a brother of the deceased, was threshing at the farm of Mr. Anderson in that township, and that the respondent and Charles Brearly were also there threshing on that day. That Peter Sinclair left the premises during the day with one Tyler, and went to Grand Rapids to procure a warrant for the arrest of respondent and Brearly for the larceny of wheat from Tyler; and that the reason of Sinclair's departure for Grand Rapids became known to respondent and Brearly, who quit work and returned to the house of respondent, hitched up a horse, and went away. Sinclair and Tyler visited the prosecuting attorney, and then went to the justice, procured the warrant,-Tyler making the complaint,-and returned, when they found upon inquiry that the respondent and Brearly had gone to Middleville, in Barry county. Sinclair, with his brother-in-law, Mr. Silcox, drove to Middleville, and there ascertained from Mr. Otto, a merchant at Middleville, that they had been there, but had departed, ostensibly, for home. That Sinclair and Silcox were then and there warned by Otto that these men were of desperate character, and might resist arrest, and they might have trouble in arresting them. They thereupon drove back to the house of Silcox, arriving there late at night; and, Sinclair arming Silcox with a revolver, and being himself armed with one, they proceeded to the residence of Gosch, accompanied by various persons on the route,-some 12 or more in number. Arriving in front of the house of Gosch, Daniel Sinclair, the deceased, came up with others, and was told by his brother, Peter Sinclair, that he had been warned of serious danger in making the arrest while at Middleville, and the parties were requested to accompany him in case he had much trouble. They thereupon proceeded to the front door of the house of Gosch. This was a one-story frame structure; the end facing the road and standing back therefrom about five of six rods. The house had one door upon the front end, and one to the rear, but no windows except upon the sides, about midway. Sinclair and Silcox, followed by several persons, among whom was the deceased, moved up to the front door, which consisted of rough boards, and opened outwards, being fastened inside with a hook. Sinclair rapped on the door, the others remaining silent. Receiving no answer, he rapped several times, and called the respondent by name, and stated he wanted him to get up, as he had a warrant for the arrest of himself and Brearly. This was about 1 or 1:30 o'clock in the morning. Hearing a noise inside, he called the respondent again by name, and told him he had a warrant for his arrest, and that, if he would open the door, and come out, and give himself up, no harm in any way would be done him. That he received a response, believed to be in the voice of respondent, asking if he "knew where the road was." That he answered, "Yes," when the respondent replied, "You had better get there, then." That he again reiterated that he wanted him, when Brearly with an oath, said, "You can't have us." Sinclair then stated that he would give them a minute or two minutes in which to open the door. About that time, Silcox took up a grub hoe which was lying near, and inserted it in the crack between the door and casement, with the inquiry of Sinclair if he had the right to open the door, to which Sinclair responded: "Yes; but I don't desire to break open the door, but will give them time to open it,"-and told Silcox to desist, which he did. That almost immediately the door was opened from the inside, and the respondent's dog came out, being directed by some one inside to "sic em." That, as the dog came out, Silcox stepped to the opening, and almost in front, and saw Brearly standing inside, and plainly recognizable by the light of a lantern and by the aid of the moon, his form being outlined against a window opening in the side of the house, which was in his rear. That he had a revolver drawn and cocked, and held straight forward towards the opening in the door. That Silcox dodged down, and sidewise, and a shot fired by Brearly passed by him, doing no damage. That he immediately returned the fire, and Peter Sinclair stepped forward towards the opening, when another shot, fired by some one inside, wounded him in the head, and he immediately fired, himself, hitting Brearly, who fell to the floor with an outcry. That immediately following this a gun barrel was thrust through the door, and the respondent was heard to exclaim, with an oath, "I will shoot your hearts out!" The gun was fired, and Daniel Sinclair was seen to fall, placing his hands over his breast, exclaiming, "I am shot!" Thereupon the parties scattered. Daniel Sinclair died almost immediately from this wound inflicted by the respondent. The respondent at once fled from the back of the house, and a few days thereafter was captured in Barry county.
It was claimed by the prosecution that, quite a long while previous to the tragedy, respondent had expressed a feeling about the arrest of his cousin by Peter Sinclair, and had threatened that, if Sinclair ever attempted to arrest him, he would not be taken alive; that one or the other of them would be killed. It also appears that, the day before the affray, Mr. Otto and a Mr. Hendricks went to the house of respondent to collect a debt of him, and while there a talk was had about the threatened arrest of respondent and Brearly by Tyler, and the respondent again made threats, in the presence of Otto, of what he would do if the arrest was attempted, his wife and Otto remonstrating with him about it, and that these threats were again made in the presence of Hendricks there; that later, and in the evening of that day, when respondent and Brearly visited Middleville, Otto renewed the subject with him, and remonstrated with him about such violent attack, when he said he had changed his mind, and that, if Sinclair came to arrest him, he would set the dog on him, and lick him. Substantially, this is the claim of the people, as made to appear on the trial.
The claim of the defense was that, in fact, Sinclair, the deputy-sheriff, had arrested the cousin of respondent without warrant, and carried him beyond the state line into Illinois and that Gosch had a perfect right to say what he did, with that qualification; that a high state of feeling existed between Sinclair and respondent, owing to difficulties which had previously occurredin an election, whereat Sinclair was a candidate for supervisor, in regard to assessment of the property of respondent. It was also claimed that Sinclair drank several times during the day of getting the warrant at Grand Rapids, and was not in a proper condition to execute the warrant; that the warrant was procured at the instance of Sinclair, and was for petty larceny, and for several reasons void, and furnished no protection to Sinclair, or any of the posse who accompanied him. It was further claimed that, when Sinclair and his posse arrived at the house, Brearly was in bed in one room, and respondent, and his wife and his five small children, were in the only other bedroom, all asleep; that Gosch's wife had informed him and Brearly upon their return from Middleville, and before they retired, that she had heard men in the highway, in front of the house, using language, which she supposed related to them, which had put her in fear; that, at the time the summons first came, respondent's wife was awakened and got up, but that her husband was still asleep; when she heard them talk about opening the door, she awakened her husband; that in the mean time Brearly had got up and dressed, and was not in the front room; that the door was opened from the outside, the staple being drawn, and the dog ran out; that the first shot was fired from the outside, and struck the parlor stove in the front room, glanced off, and struck the wall; that then Brearly fired with his revolver, when a second and third shot was fired from the outside, and perhaps more; that Brearly fell, exclaiming he was shot; that the wife of Gosch was stunned by one of these shots, and fell, supposing that a shot had hit her, exclaiming that she was shot; that meanwhile Gosch had procured his gun, but, without using threats, and without knowing the purpose of the party on the outside, fired this shot from the gun, which killed Daniel Sinclair, and, supposing that his wife was wounded, and the mob assailing the house, escaped, and hurried to Middleville to obtain a doctor; that the threats, if any were made to Otto and Hendricks, were made under great stress of emotion, but that he had quieted down when he reached Middleville, the night before, and had made up his mind to submit to the arrest, and so stated to Otto; that, being awakened as he was, and believing his wife to have been shot, and his children's lives as well as his own in danger, he fired the fatal shot; and that such firing...
To continue reading
Request your trial