People v. Kuehn

• Citation: 53 N.W. 721,93 Mich. 619
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 02 December 1892
• Parties: PEOPLE v. KUEHN.

53 N.W. 721

93 Mich. 619

PEOPLE v. KUEHN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 2, 1892

Error to circuit court, St. Clair county; WILLIAM T. MITCHELL Judge.

Thile Kuehn was convicted of murder, and brings error. Reversed.

Stevens & Merriam, for appellant.

A A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and Cyrus A. Hovey, Pros. Atty., for the People.

DURAND J.

The information filed in this case charges the respondent with the murder of Wesley McDonald on September 15, 1891, at the township of Port Huron, in St. Clair county. Upon the trial he was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the state prison at Jackson for the period of 22 years. The record discloses that on the day mentioned the respondent, who is a farmer, about 53 years of age, was living with his family, consisting of a wife and five children, upon a small farm in a rather inaccessible place near the Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad track in Port Huron township. He was born in Prussia, speaks the English language brokenly, and it is claimed that he does not understand it perfectly. On the morning of the tragedy the wife of the respondent, who was in the yard near the house made loud outcries, which attracted the attention of some men, of whom the deceased was one, who were walking along the railroad track. It is claimed that she had a fit at the time that she was subject to such attacks, and that upon such occasions she was accustomed to scream and cry aloud. While the men were listening to the outcries, and discussing the reason for them, one John Murphy, who had been to the house, and been told by the respondent's wife that her husband had beaten her, came up and told them that the respondent had been or was beating his wife. Thereupon three of the party, consisting of Ed. Goodrich, John Murphy, and Wesley McDonald, the deceased, started for the respondent's house. They walked rapidly, and, as they approached the house, increased their pace to a run. The respondent saw them coming, and left the barn, where he says he was at work, for the house, where he got a gun, and went to the door, and ordered them away, and threatened to shoot if they did not go. A controversy then arose between all the parties, and it is evident from the record that they were all very much excited. The respondent was given to understand that these men supposed that he had been whipping his wife, and that they were angry and indignant because of it, and in the excitement of the occasion he insists that McDonald threatened to kill him, and he so testified; that he was afraid that he would do so; and that, while McDonald was advancing upon him in an angry and threatening manner, he shot and killed him. The witnesses do not agree fully in relation to what did actually occur at the time, but all agree that there was a good deal of excitement, and much improper and threatening language used on both sides. With this, however, we have nothing to do, and will therefore refrain from commenting upon it. The respondent insisted...