People v. Hughson

• Decision Date: 26 October 1897
• Citation: 47 N.E. 1092,154 N.Y. 153
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HUGHSON.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

154 N.Y. 153

47 N.E. 1092

PEOPLE

v.HUGHSON.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 26, 1897.

Appeal from supreme court, trial term, Albany county.

Edward Hughson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Patrick C. Dugan, for appellant.

Eugene Burlingame, Dist. Atty., for the People.

HAIGHT, J.

About 8 o'clock in the morning of the 23d day of June, 1896, Elizabeth Hughson, the wife of the defendant, was found, in the house occupied by her, covered with blood, and suffering from four gunshot wounds. One bullet had entered the back part of the head, struck the skull, deflected downward, and lodged in the muscles of the neck; another had entered near the nose, passing nearly through the head, and imbedded itself in the brain tissues; another had lodged in the bones of the wrist; and the other had passed through the index finger. She was conveyed to a hospital in the city of Albany, where she died on the third day thereafter. The defendant was about 26 years of age. He had been married to the deceased two years, and they had one child. On the 17th day of September, 1894, he entered the employ of Charles Hinckel, in the capacity of a coachman, and took up his residence with his wife in the lodge house upon the Hinckel premises, within a few rods of the city line of the city of Albany. In February, 1895, one Anna Rohloff was employed by Mr. and Mrs. Hinckel as a cook in their residence, which was situated a few rods back from the lodge house, which stood at the entrance to their grounds. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Hughson became violently jealous of Anna Rohloff, and accused her of being intimate with her husband, and repeated these charges to Mrs. Hinckel. From that time on, frequent quarrels appear to have taken place between Mrs. Hughson and the defendant with reference to the Rohloff girl, until finally it culminated in her refusing to cook for him, and of his refusing to stay with her in the lodge house. He thereafter took his meals in the kitchen of the Hinckel residence, and slept in the clubroom of the carriage house. About three weeks before the homicide he went to a pawnshop on Green street, in Albany, and purchased a pistol, together with a box of cartridges. He then returned to the Hinckel residence, and loaded the pistol with four cartridges, leaving two empty chambers. After loading the pistol, he placed it in his hip pocket, and continued to carry it until the morning of the homicide. On Monday, the 22d of June, Mrs. Hinckel and Anna Rohloff went to Albany in the carriage, the defendant driving. After doing some shopping, the defendant, under the directions of Mrs. Hinckel, drove Anna to her own home, on Fourth avenue. It was then arranged that he was to meet her at the end of the Madison avenue street-car line, at the corner of Allen street, about 25 minutes after 10 o'clock, for the purpose of conveying her to the Hinckel residence. He then returned home, put his horses out, and went to his house, between 6 and 7 o'clock. It then appears from his statement in the case that he and his wife had another quarrel, she inquiring who went to town with Mrs. Hinckel, and, on being informed that it was Anna, spoke of her as a vile person, saying that he was a nice coachman, to be driving her about the city, and that she supposed he was going for her again that night; and he said he was. Other expressions then followed, which it is unnecessary to repeat, which very plainly indicated her displeasure and disgust. At the appointed hour he drove over to the end of the car line, got Anna, and returned, reaching the Hinckel residence about 40 minutes after 10 o'clock in the evening. He states that he drove to the barn; put out his horse; asked Anna to get him the key to the ice house, so that he could get a bottle of beer; that, after he got the beer, he sat down upon the cellar door, at the rear of the kitchen of the Hinckel house, drank it, and smoked his pipe. He tells us that he sat there alone from half to three-quarters of an hour. He then went to the lodge house, and found the door locked, but his wife got up and let him in. She then asked him where he had been since he came from the car. He told her, and that he had got a bottle of beer and smoked his pipe. ‘She says: ‘You lie. You have been over in the kitchen again with the whore.’ I says: ‘Lizzie, I have not. I have not seen Anna since she locked the door and went upstairs.’ She says: ‘I know better, and, if this thing don't stop. I am going to leave you.’ I asked her then what she was going to do,—if she was going to get the divorce she said she was going to get from me. She says: ‘No; I will not disgrace my people by getting a divorce. Before I will do that, I will kill myself.’ I says: ‘Go on to bed. I don't feel like quarreling to-night. I have a headache, and I don't want to have anything more to say to you about it.’ She says, ‘I will not shut up,’ and she whirled around to the stand that set at the side of the bedroom door; and picked up a saucer and threw it at me. I jumped up, and threw my hand up over my head to ward off the blow, and I lost myself entirely from that time.' ‘When I woke the next morning I was in the clubroom, on the floor. I had my coat and clothes on, the same as I was the night before. The minute I woke up, it came to me about my wife quarreling with me, and, some way, that I had heard a pistol shot. I could not remember. I thought I heard a pistol shot some time during the night. I jumped up and grabbed my pistol out of my pocket, to see if it had been shot, and the cylinder of it was gone; and I went right out in the wagon house,—started to go over home. When I got where I could see the clock, it was twenty minutes of six, and I expected Mr. Hinckel out any minute to take his horse. So I put on my overalls and jacket, and went in the stable and got his horse ready, and I just got his horse hooked when he came out and drove away. As soon as he drove away I took the pistol that I had,—what was left of it,—and walked around back of the ice house, and threw it under the corner of the old carriage house. I was scared. I didn't know what to do. I went back, and started to go over to my house, to see if I was right in hearing that pistol shot. I got over as far as the little play house for the children, and looked over to the house, and saw smoke coming out of the chimney; and I thought then everything was all right,—that she was up,—so I turned and went back to the barn.’ This is the defendant'sversion of the transaction. It appeared, however, the next morning, that the front door was locked, and that the door between the living part and the new apartment which was being fixed was bolted or fastened, and that, in order to enter the living room, he and another man had to push the door open. There was evidence tending to show that the drawers had been opened, and the contents scattered about the room; that the money in Mrs. Hughson's purse had been taken from it, and it lay open upon the stand; that a half-dozen silver-plated salt cellars had been taken from the house, and were subsequently found under the carriage house where he had thrown his pistol. When entrance was first effected to the house in the morning, Mrs. Hughson was standing behind the door. When questioned as to what was the matter with her, she replied that she had fallen downstairs, but subsequently, after a neighboring woman had arrived, and it was found that she had gunshot wounds, she said, in the presence of her husband, that he had done it. This he denied, but he had made the statement that she had been shot before that fact had been discovered by others, and he evidently sought to have the impression go out that the house had been entered by burglars, who had done the shooting.

We have but briefly alluded to the evidence, passing over many of the details without mention. It was submitted to the jury upon an impartial charge, and the verdict has been found against the defendant. We have carefully examined the evidence, and are fully satisfied that it supports the conclusion reached by the jury. The circumstances quite clearly indicate diliberation and premeditation. He had never been in the habit of carrying a revolver until within three weeks of the homicide, and not then until the relation between himself and his wife had become so strained that they could not longer live together. It is true that he claims to have purchased it for the purpose of killing dogs, but he put it to a very different use. The opening of the drawers, the scattering of the contents about the room, the taking of the salt cellars, and the emptying of the purse, all tended to support the theory that the house had been entered by burglars, and, in view of his subsequent admission, practically to the effect that the shooting was done by himself, although, he claims, while in an unconscious condition, leaves no reasonable doubt but that there was deliberation and premeditation prior to the doing of the act.

In impaneling the jury, Jacob Miller was challenged for bias by the defendant. The challenge was overruled by the court, and an exception taken. He was then sworn, and served as a juror upon the trial, no...