People v. Schultz

• Decision Date: 17 February 1915
• Docket Number: No. 9843.,9843.
• Citation: 267 Ill. 147,107 N.E. 833
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SCHULTZ.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

267 Ill. 147

107 N.E. 833

PEOPLE

v.SCHULTZ.

No. 9843.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 17, 1915.

Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; Charles A. McDonald, Judge.

Otto Schultz was convicted of manslaughter, and brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Brundage, Landon & Holt, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

P. J. Lucey, Atty. Gen., Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, and George P. Ramsey, of Springfield, for the People.

FARMER, J.

Plaintiff in error was indicted for the murder of Otto Schaffner in Cook county December 30, 1913. In May, 1914, he was tried, found guilty of manslaughter, and sentenced to an indeterminate term in the penitentiary. This writ of error is sued out to review the judgment of the criminal court.

Plaintiff in error is a cabinet maker and at the time of the homicide had a shop in which he had carried on his business at 4300 Crawford avenue, Chicago, since some time in November, 1913. Before that he had a shop on Elston avenue near Crawford avenue. That place was burned some time in the late summer of 1913. The deceased was employed by plaintiff in error and worked in the shop on Crawford avenue from about December 1st until his death. He had previously worked for plaintiff in error in his shop on Elston avenue. During the month of December two fires started in the building occupied by plaintiff in error, but they were extinguished before any serious demage was done. Plaintiff in error, apparently acting on the suspicion that the fires in his premises were the work of incendiaries, was in his shop the evening of December 30th, for the purpose, as he stated, of watching for the supposed incendiaries. Deceased was with him, apparently by his request. There were no lights in the building, and at about 7 o'clock Schaffner was killed by a bullet from a revolver of 32 caliber, which entered his left temple one inch in front of and one inch above the canal of the ear, passed through the head, and came out of the right side of the head about an inch higher and a half inch further back than the place on the left side where it entered. No one was in the building with deceased but plaintiff in error and no one else heard the shot fired.

Jacob Pies operated a sash and door factory near the shop of plaintiff in error and had been acquainted with him for five years. Pies testified that about a quarter past 7 o'clock in the evening of December 30th he was in a saloon across the street from the shop of plaintiff in error and plaintiff in error came to him and asked him to go across the street, and said, ‘The other fellow shot himself.’ Pies asked plaintiff in error to tell about it there at the saloon, and suggested that they go back in the ladies' room, which they did. Plaintiff in error then said: ‘Now we know where all the fires came from. This man told me that he lit my place that burned down on the 9th of November, and he did that because he was sore because I would not leave him divide out with me.’ He asked the witness if his daughter had received a letter from deceased. He said deceased had given Rausch (who also worked for plaintiff in error) $10 to start the fire, and that deceased said he had told plaintiff in error everything in order to get rid of the trouble and was going to kill himself, and then fired the shot, and that it was done with plaintiff in error's revolver. Witness asked plaintiff in error if he believed what the deceased said about Rausch, and he replied, ‘That is what he told me.’ He asked the witness what he should do, and witness suggested that he notify the police, and this was done from the saloon, where the witness and plaintiff in error remained until the police came.

Frank E. Johnson, a police officer, testified that he was called to the place of business of plaintiff in error on the evening of December 30th, and other policemen arrived there about 7:40 o'clock. Plaintiff in error went with him to the shop and to a side door that opened into the buildingon the south side. Witness opened the door and found the body of Schaffner lying on the floor, with the legs or feet against the door and the head to the northwest. There was no light in the building and witness lighted a match. On the right side of the body, and about three or four feet from it, was a revolver, which witness picked up and recognized as one he had seen in the possession of plaintiff in error the previous evening when witness was at his place of business, at which time Pies was present, and witness, Pies, and plaintiff in error had a talk about the trouble they had had about fires and keeping watch for any one who might try to burn their factories. At that time the witness asked plaintiff in error if he knew of any motive any one had for wanting to destroy his property and he said he did not. Witness asked him if he was insured, and he said no; that he saw a man on Elston avenue who told him he could have insurance; that he was insured but did not have the policy. The witness further testified that when he picked up the revolver from the side of deceased he asked plaintiff in error whose it was and he said he did not know. Witness then asked him if it was not his, and he said it was. Witness inquired how deceased came to have it, and plaintiff in error said he asked for it, as he wanted to watch the building, and plaintiff in error let him have it, but later said he did not give it to deceased but laid it on a table. Witness testified plaintiff in error said he was walking up and down the street when Schaffner shot himself. He also told witness that Schaffner had said something to the effect that he had burned the place across the street (apparently referring to the plaintiff in error's shop which was burned down); that he was attempting to burn the present place of business; and that was the reason why he was going to shoot himself. Schaffner was still alive when found, but died about 10 o'clock without having recovered consciousness. There were five loaded cartridges in the revolver and one exploded cartridge under the hammer.

Felix Rausch, at whose house Schaffner boarded, testified he and Schaffner were working for Pies when his shop burned down. Afterward they worked for plaintiff in error. The witness worked for him seven days, and said there were small fires there every day and big fires the 29th and 30th of December. When the fire occurred the 30th witness and Schaffner were notified of it by plaintiff in error and helped put it out. That fire was in the dining room of the residence of plaintiff in error; his residence being in rooms over the shop. The fire on the 29th occurred about half past 1 in the afternoon. Witness was not in the shop but was in a bakery in the near vicinity when notified of it. He went to the shop, and testified he saw and smelled kerosene on a window sash, and when the fire was extinguished plaintiff in error told him to break up the frame and burn it in the stove. About a half hour afterwards an inspector came and made an examination. He asked plaintiff in error how an outsider could come in the shop in the daytime and pour kerosene on things. Plaintiff in error replied the vagabonds were up to anything. The witness further testified that on the morning of the 30th, at about 8 o'clock, plaintiff in error had a revolver and was showing Schaffner how to use it; that he pointed it at the intestines of Schaffner, and witness told him if he did not know how to handle a revolver to let it alone; that if it was fired Schaffner would be dead. Schaffner then took the revolver and put it in a box up near the window. This was the revolver offered in evidence. The box it was put in was a white paper box, having a cover which could be raised. Schaffner had a little revolver there, but there were no cartridges in it.

Dr. Reinhardt, coroner's physician, testified that he performed a post mortem examination on the body of Schaffner on December 31, 1913. He described the wound and said it was caused by a 32 caliber bullet. He did not discover any powder marks, but did not say he made any examination for them. He testified death was caused by the bullet wound, but that he had no opinion, from the examination he made, whether the wound could have been self-inflicted.

Joseph Groser testified he was in the real estate and fire insurance business and solicited plaintiff in error to take insurance on his shop. He at first said he was not prepared for it, but in December witness received his order for insurance to the amount of $1,400. The witness testified the policy was never written up but that the plaintiff in error was protected.

The plaintiff in error's former place of business which burned down was insured, as we understand, for $1,200, but he was paid only $840 for the loss. On the 28th of November, 1913, he borrowed from Schaffner $200, for which he gave a note, due in six months, for $210, bearing interest at 7 per cent. from date. This note was found in Schaffner's possession after his death. Schaffner also at a later date loaned plaintiff in error $140, which was acknowledged by receipt but no note given. The uncontradicted proof was that plaintiff in error and Schaffner were on friendly terms and had never had any controversy or falling out with each other.

The prosecution was permitted to prove, over the objection of plaintiff in error, by the daughter of Pies, that she never received any letter from deceased, that he had never made love to her or courted her, and that her acquaintance with him was slight; also by Rausch, over objection, that deceased did not offer to pay him $10 to set fire to plaintiff in error's premises. The prosecution further proved, over objections of plaintiff in error, experiments made with a 32 caliber revolver and bullets similar to those in the revolver of plaintiff in error, fired at a piece of white paper, to determine the distance at which the paper would be powder-marked. The sheets of paper used in the experiments were...