People v. Limeberry

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARTER
• Citation: People v. Limeberry, 298 Ill. 355, 131 N.E. 691 (Ill. 1921)
• Decision Date: 22 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 13878.,13878.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. LIMEBERRY.

298 Ill. 355

131 N.E. 691

PEOPLE

v.LIMEBERRY.

No. 13878.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1921.

Error to Circuit Court, Livingston County; G. W. Patton, Judge.

Eli D. Limeberry was convicted of murder, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life, and he brings error.

Affirmed.Arthur A. Lowry and R. M. Niven, both of Pontiac (Lawrence Elmer Stone, of Springfield, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., J. H. McFadden, of Pontiac, and Albert D. Rodenberg, of Springfield (William Wilson, of Pontiac, of counsel), for the People.

CARTER, J.

Plaintiff in error, Eli D. Limeberry, was tried and convicted in the circuit court of Livingston county on the charge of murder, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. The record has been brought to this court by writ of error.

Limeberry, at the time the crime was committed, was a barber, and had worked in a shop owned and operated by Ernest Reutter, in Fairbury, Livingston county, from late in August, 1917, until October 5, 1917, when he shot and killed Reutter. He had worked regularly from the time he was employed until the shooting, except a few days when absent at Monmouth, Ill., as a witness called by the state in a homicide case. Reutter left Fairbury after Limeberry went to testify in Monmouth, and after Limeberry got back Ellis, one of the barbers, who was in charge of the shop in the proprietor's absence, telegraphed Reutter suggesting that he discharge Limeberry, and a telegram in response discharging Limeberry was received and shown to Limeberry on October 2. The telegram ordered Limeberry to deliver his keys and other things belonging to the shop to Ellis, which he refused to do. He inquired of Ellis when Reutter would return to the city, and was told Thursday evening, October 4. He went to the train with his son, about 11 years of age, to meet Reutter. Ellis also met the train and talked with Reutter first. While Limeberry was waiting at the depot he met J. B. Armstrong, who was in charge of another barber shop in Fairbury, and while talking together he called Armstrong's attention to the fact that his son had a revolver in his pocket, and Armstrong told him he had better not have the revolver around, as he might be arrested, and Limeberry replied that that was why he let the young boy carry it. After Ellis had met Reutter at the train and had a talk with him they started to walk away together, when Limeberry stopped Reutter and said he wanted to talk with him, Ellis going on. There is evidence tending to show that during this talk Limeberry asked Reutter to come to his house that evening, and that Reutter promised to come, but although Limeberry waited for some time for that purpose Reutter did not come to Limeberry's house.

The next morning Limeberry sent a note to Reutter at the shop by the 11 year old son, Marvin, and Reutter wrote on the back of the note, ‘Good job at Forrest,’ and the boy returned the note, with that answer on it, to his father. The evidence shows that at this time Limeberry had made arrangements with Armstrong to enterhis employ, and that morning, after receiving the note, he went with his son to the Armstrong barber shop and left the son on the street to watch for Reutter when he went by on his way to dinner. The son did this, and between 11 and 12 o'clock ran into Armstrong's shop and told his father Reutter was starting home. The father and boy went into the street, and when Reutter came along Limeberry met him and asked why he was discharged, and called deceased a vile name. Thereupon the deceased, who was considerably larger than Limeberry, kicked at him, or, according to some of the testimony, kicked him. They then had a little further talk, and deceased said, ‘You know why I did it; I discharged you because you were drinking, and we did not want you around the shop.’ Limeberry used some violent language in response, and the porter in Reutter's barber shop, who had come near, and saw that Limeberry had taken a revolver from his pocket, called Reutter's attention to the fact that his dinner was waiting, and he ought to go, and deceased started off, when Limeberry took hold of his arm and said, ‘I want to talk to you,’ again stating that deceased had treated him badly in discharging him the way he did, and Reutter replied, ‘All right.’ Limeberry said, ‘What did you fire me for?’ and Reutter replied, ‘I just told you why I fired you; I have to go to dinner; see you this afternoon,’ and started away. Limeberry again took the revolver out of his pocket and fired three times at Reutter, one of the shots taking effect in his abdomen and another in the neck, the latter being a mortal wound. Limeberry then started away at a fast walk or at a run, going something over half a block from the scene of the shooting. On seeing his pursuers coming near him he threw his revolver away, held up his shands, and was taken into custody by two of the men attracted by the shooting and placed in the city lockup. Reutter was taken at once to the hospital, and died very shortly from the effect of the wounds.

On the trial and in this record the shooting is admitted practically as stated, but the defense is that plaintiff in error was insane, and therefore not responsible, and also that the trial court committed various errors, which it is insisted should reverse the case.

[1] Plaintiff in error at the time of the shooting was about 36 years old. He was born in Indiana, on a farm. It was testified that when about 21 years old he was thrown from a horse, and as a result was carried to the house in an unconscious condition in which condition he remained for several hours, and was confined to the bed by the accident for several days. He remained on the farm after this accident for some time, and then learned the barber trade. He was married about 1905, and went to work as a barber, afterward removing to Illinois. His sister testified that he was called home by his father's death, in 1909, remaining at the home a few days; that on this occasion she observed him sitting under a tree and putting stones on the ground; that he refused to come to dinner one time when called, and was seen to stand and look across the fields, and when approached and addressed by relatives would not reply; that he was observed to be crying without giving any reason. It was further testified that he was seen by one of his brothers turning chairs over and throwing the bedclothes on the floor. This brother testified that when he was home at that time he looked wildly out of his eyes, and seemed to be nervous; that, on another occasion, while visiting at the brother's house, he went to bed with his clothes on.

There was also testimony that at another time, 5 or 6 years previous to the trial, while he was being shaved by a barber who had known him since boyhood in Indiana he tried to get out of the chair, but, being talked to by the barber, quieted down; that later he was taken by the same barber on a trip to West Baden for treatment, and wanted to get out of the train when it was moving, but was brought to his seat by his barber friend and taken to West Baden; that he stayed a day and then went back home; that on this trip, without any apparent reason, he grabbed a check from the hand of one of his companions and tore it up. The doctor who examined him at West Baden (or French Lick Springs) said he thought some of his actions were strange. He worked at or near Monmouth as a barber for 2 years or more before he went to Fairbury, in August, 1917, part of the time running his own shop. A short time before he left Monmouth he saw a homicide committed in a restaurant or ice cream parlor, and it was in regard to this crime that he was sent for as a witness to come to Monmouth just a few days before the shooting here in question. A nephew, who also saw the homicide, testified that he met him in Monmouth on this trip, and that he seemed very nervous; that during their visit there they went together, apparently at plaintiff in error's request, into the country and into a field of growing corn, and plaintiff in error said he did not want to go back to the city; that he was going to try to hide in the field, and he bent down some of the cornstalks for a place of shelter, and showed he thought he was being pursued. The nephew testified that he thought he was crazy at that time.

A sister-in-law of plaintiff in error testified that in 1917, while he was running a barber shop in Monmouth, he visited her and sat down on the floor instead of sitting in a chair; that in a few minutes he jumped up and sat on a bed; that she talked with him, but he would not reply, and only stared at her; that when he tried to get up she pushed him back on the bed and held him there; that she sat by his bed the rest of the night, and when morning came he got up and walked into the kitchen, drank some coffee, and went away. The state's attorney who sent for plaintiff in error as a witness, and to whom plaintiff in error had told the story of the shooting in Monmouth right after it occurred, saw him on this trip back to Monmouth, and told him that he did not think he needed him as a witness, as the testimony was largely on whether the accused then being tried in Monmouth was crazy or of sound mind. After he returned to Fairbury from Monmouth, while talking to one of the barbers in Reutter's shop, the conversation turned to the homicide trial in Monmouth, and plaintiff in error said to the barber he did not know whether or not the defendant would be convicted, as he was playing insanity strong, and he thought he was going to get away with it. Both the state's attorney and the sheriff in Monmouth, who had known plaintiff in error for some time, and who had considerable opportunity to talk with him while he was back there as a witness, testified they thought he was sane at the time, and had been sane during the time they had known him in and about Monmouth for the two years or...