People v. MacGregor

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: STONE
• Citation: 178 Mich. 436,144 N.W. 869
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MACGREGOR.
• Decision Date: 05 January 1914

178 Mich. 436
144 N.W. 869

PEOPLE
v.
MACGREGOR.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 5, 1914.

Error to Circuit Court, Huron County; Watson Beach, Judge.

Robert A. Macgregor was convicted of murder, and brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before STEERE, C. J., and MOORE, McALVAY, BROOKE, KUHN, STONE, OSTRANDER, and BIRD, JJ.

[144 N.W. 870]

George M. Clark, of Bad Axe (Walsh & Walsh, of Port Huron, of counsel), for appellant.

X. A. Boomhower, Pros. Atty., of Bad Axe (E. A. Snow, of Saginaw, of counsel), for the People.

STONE, J.

The respondent was, by the information filed in this case, charged with the murder, by poisoning by means of arsenic, of one Scyrel Sparling. He was convicted June 5, 1912, of murder in the first degree, and on June 10th was sentenced to the state prison for life.

The respondent at the time of the trial was about 36 years old. He was born near London, Ontario, where his father and some other relatives reside. In the spring of 1897 respondent graduated as a physician from the Western University in London, and went to Hildreth, Neb., where he practiced his profession for about 6 1/2 years, and where he was married. In the fall of 1903 he left Hildreth and located at Burnside, Mich., about 40 miles from Ubly, and engaged in the practice of medicine there. About a year after that he came to Ubly, Mich., and purchased the practice of one Dr. Giffin and located there with his family, and was living there as a practicing physician for about seven years before his arrest upon the charge in this case. Ubly is a small village about six or seven miles from Bad Axe, Huron county. Respondent's father is an old resident of London, Ontario, and district manager of the Sun Life Insurance Company. Respondent also has another brother who is a practicing physician at London. Respondent first became acquainted with the Sparling family, of which Scyrel was a member, about May, 1907, when he was called to attend Mrs. Sparling; that was about 4 1/2 years before his arrest in this case. At that time John Wesley Sparling, the father of the family, was alive. The father died in 1908. Peter Sparling died when 24 years of age, July 10, 1910. Albert Sparling died when 23 years of age, May 3, 1911. Scyrel Sparling died when 20 years of age, August 14, 1911. Of this family there remain living Mrs. Sparling, the mother of the children, May Sparling Hurford, a daughter, and Ray Sparling, a son, who was 22 years of age at the time of the trial of the respondent. From the time the respondent, Dr. Macgregor, commenced treating Mrs. Sparling, in 1907, he continued as the family physician of the Sparling family until shortly after Scyrel's death.

Counsel upon neither side have complied with rule 40 of this court by making a concise statement of the facts of the case distinct from argument, and we have found it difficult, owing to the length of the record, to gather a succinct statement of the facts. The importance of the case is such, however, that we have endeavored to glean from the record a fair statement of the prominent facts in the case.

There was evidence that Scyrel Sparling was taken sick August 4, 1911, and died ten days thereafter. The respondent was first called on the night of August 4, 1911, and he continued to be in attendance until the time of death. On the 5th day of August, 1911, Dr. Herrington of Bad Axe, a physician and surgeon of 30 years' practice, was called by the respondent in consultation in the case. Dr. Herrington inquired of the respondent as to the history of the case, and was informed by him that Scyrel had been taken sick with vomiting, with a good deal of pain in his stomach, followed by diarrhea while on his way home from Ubly. Dr. Herrington testified that he examined the patient at that time, took his pulse, temperature, and respiration, examined his chest, more particularly his abdomen, as there was where most of the trouble was directed. He testified that the patient had no fever, his pulse running between 90 and 100, and the doctor stated that if he were called to see a case of that kind he would possibly give something to clear his bowels, then give him a sedative, such as bismuth, to quiet the diarrhea. Dr. Herrington then stated that he saw no reason why the boy should not recover from the appearance of him at that time. But the respondent stated that other members of the family had been taken sick in the same way and had died. Dr. Herrington's exact language was: ‘The doctor said that the others had been taken sick in exactly the same way and had gone on and died, and he was afraid that this one would do the same thing, or

[144 N.W. 871]

words to that effect, that this one would go the same way.’

Dr. Herrington testified that at the time the respondent did not state what medicines he had been giving the patient. He testified that on the following Monday he met the respondent on the road, and the latter then told him that the boy was worse; that his mouth had become very sore, and the skin of the anus was irritated, and he seemed very much weaker. Dr. Herrington further testified: That on the following Sunday he was called, with Dr. Conboy, to see the patient. That Dr. Conboy came over and asked him to go down with him, stating that the patient was very much worse; and that they went, both of them, to see him. Upon their arrival at the Sparling home, the respondent and Dr. Holdship were there. That at that time witness did not examine the boy very closely, as it was evident that he was dying, and there was nothing to be gained by doing anything. That one couldn't get any symptoms out of the boy to amount to anything.

On the 7th of August Dr. Conboy of Bad Axe was called down by the respondent to see the patient. He arrived there about midnight and found the respondent sleeping in a hammock outside the house and accompanied him to the bedroom where the patient was. He testified that he looked over the boy, felt his pulse, and listened to the respondent's story, who told him that he was vomiting and purging and had abdominal pain. The respondent then told Dr. Conboy that he thought possibly the patient had pancreatitis, or inflammation of the pancreas, and told what he had been giving him, mentioning bismuth and ipecac to try to stop the vomiting. The doctor observed that the patient was vomiting, and the respondent and patient's mother told him that the patient had excessive diarrhea and purging. The doctor testified that he then observed, with reference to the patient's condition from the examination, that he had severe abdominal pain, pain over the belly, and particularly over the stomach; that his mouth was inflamed, also the mucous membrane or lining of his mouth and tongue were inflamed. The patient's pulse was fast and feeble, being about 100, and that the respondent told him that he had no fever, or very little. The witness testified that he then observed that most of the vomiting came from too much medicine he had been getting, and said, ‘Let's stop all medicine and see what difference that will make,’ and said he would come the following day and see what difference that made; and he said he would give him some tonic out of his pocket, and left some pills to be given three times a day until he came back. The tablets consisted of strychnine, 1/100 of a grain. He examined him for different diseases prevalent there, that had similar symptoms, to see if it might be one of those; for instance, appendicitis. He concluded that there was no infectious disease, or none of the ordinary diseases. When the witness went away nothing was said; only he would be back the following day. He reached there about 5 o'clock p. m. the next day, and the respondent was there and the mother of the boy. He then examined the patient more carefully in the daylight. He found symptoms the same as the day preceding and learned that he had been purging and vomiting, had diarrhea and abdominal pain, and the mucous membrane of the throat and tongue was inflamed and sore, likewise the nostrils and eyes to some extent. The witness in examining the patient was standing at the head of the bed looking over his head and face, and the respondent was at the witness' right sitting about halfway down the bedside. The witness testified as follows:

‘I also examined the eyes a little after examining the mouth. I examined his mouth quite particularly for different kinds of poison in the gums and throat, because the gums very often tell what kind of poison is taken by an individual. I asked the boy if his eyes were sore, and the doctor answered up and said he had conjunctivitis; that is, inflammation of the eyes. Scyrel made a reply with reference to his eyes and answered in the affirmative that they had been sore. I asked him if his eyes were itchy, and he said yes, and then the doctor interrupted. He asked me what I was hunting for. I said, ‘Oh, nothing.’ The condition of his pulse was the same as the former condition, 100, fast and feeble. I started for the bedroom door to leave the room. I got as far as the door, a little outside of the door. The doctor followed and caught me by the shoulder or arm and twisted me around and spoke to me. I was walking out of he bedroom and got to the door, just out of the bedroom door into the sitting room, and the doctor followed me from the side, from where he was sitting halfway on the east side of the bed, followed me around the head of the bed out of the dining room and caught me by the right shoulder and twisted me around. Q. What did he say to you? A. Asked me if I was thinking of arsenic. Q. He asked you if you were thinking of arsenic? A. Yes. Q. Just use the language that he used, if you can recollect. A. ‘Are you thinking of arsenic, doctor?’ Q. Had you mentioned arsenic up to that time? A. No, sir. Q. What did you say? A. I said I was. Q. What did he say? A. Well, he said it was strange both of us would be thinking of the same thing at the same time. We both walked out doors...