People v. Kerrigan

• Decision Date: 08 October 1895
• Citation: 147 N.Y. 210,41 N.E. 494
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KERRIGAN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

147 N.Y. 210

41 N.E. 494

PEOPLE

v.KERRIGAN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 8, 1895.

Appeal from court of oyer and terminer, New York county.

Thomas Kerrigan was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Andrew D. Parker, for appellant.

John D. Lindsay, for the People.

O'BRIEN, J.

The defendant was convicted of the murder of one Aaron Alexander, in a saloon in Rivington street, in the city of New York, on the night of April 3, 1894. That the deceased died from the effects of a pistol shot fired by the defendant at the time and place above mentioned is not disputed, the only question being whether the other elements-of intent, deliberation, and premeditation-necessary to constitute the crime were sufficiently established. It appeared from the testimony that the deceased was a strong, powerful man, who was disposed to be quarrelsome, and who actually had some quarrel or dispute with the defendant about a week before the homicide. The particulars of this difficulty do not distinctly appear, and they are material only so far as they tend to show that on the night of the homicide the deceased and the defendant met in the saloon under the influence of those feelings and passions which had been incited by a previous quarrel or serious disagreement. It appears that the deceased, the defendant, and several other persons who associated more or less with them, were in the habit of meeting at this saloon in the evening for the purpose of drinking and card playing, and, on the evening of the homicide, were all together in the early part of the evening. The immediate cause of the difficulty which preceded the shooting was what the deceased evidently took to be a slight offered him by the defendant. It appears that the deceased, the defendant, and five other persons were in the barroom of the saloon on the night in question, and the defendant asked the five other persons to drink beer with him, ignoring the deceased, who immediately took offense, and called the defendant offensive and vulgar names, and finally struck him in the face and upon the nose, causing the blood to flow. There is some conflict in the testimony of the witnesses as to what actually took place and was said by both parties at this stage of the quarrel. They all agree, however, substantially, that the defendant received from the deceased one or more severe blows in the face with the fist, or, as some of them say, with a beer glass which was held in the hand, and that after this occurred the defendant went into a closet adjoining the barroom, washed the blood from his face, and then passed through the barroom out into the street, through the door. After the lapse of a period of time which is variously described by the witnesses as from 5 to 15 minutes, he returned, found the deceased still in the barroom, and, pointing a pistol at him, fired while the deceased was attempting to escape from his behind the bar. The bullet entered the body of the deceased near the right hip, passed through the pelvis, and came out in front, inflicting a wound from which he died soon after. One of the police officers, who had the defendant in charge after the shooting, testified, in substance, that the defendant confessed to him that after the quarrel in the saloon, and after the defendant had washed the blood from his face, he went directly to his house, which was about two blocks distant, and there procured the revolver, and then returned to the saloon and fired the fatal shot at the deceased. The defendant was the principal witness in his own behalf. He denied that he made any such admissions to the police. Swore that he found the pistol in the street in the month of October previous, and that he carried it constantly from that time, and had it in his pocket when the altercation took place in the saloon resulting in the blow from the deceased; that, upon entering the saloon the second time, he took it from his pocket, intending only to frighten the deceased; that, one of the bystanders having seized him by the wrist, the pistol was accidentally...