People v. Scott

• Decision Date: 04 May 1897
• Citation: 153 N.Y. 40,46 N.E. 1028
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SCOTT.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

153 N.Y. 40

46 N.E. 1028

PEOPLE

v.SCOTT.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 4, 1897.

Appeal from court of general sessions, New York county.

Howard A. Scott appeals from a judgment on a verdict convicting him of murder in the first degree and from an order denying motion for a new trial. Affirmed.

John D. Lindsay, for the People.

VANN, J.

On the 20th of November, 1896, the defendant, a colored man, 29 years of age, was indicted for the murder of his wife, Maggie Scott, a colored woman, 27 years of age, on the 26th of October, 1896, at No. 159 West Thirtieth street, in the city of New York, by shooting her with a revolver. His trial commenced before the court of general sessions on the 11th of January, 1897, and on the 18th of that month resulted in a verdict of murder in the first degree.

Both the accused and the deceased were born at Petersburg, Va., and had known each other from childhood. After receiving a common-school education, he was apprenticed to learn the trade of a painter, but before he completed his term of service, and about 11 years before the homicide, he came North and located in the city of New York, where he has since resided. Three or four years later he was married to Maggie Taylor, the deceased. For a time they lived happily together, but after a while he neglected her for the company of other women, ceased to work regularly, lived largely upon her earnings, and on several occasions beat her with his fists, blackened her eyes, and bruised her face. Quarrels were frequent between them on account of his relations with two white women known as ‘Dutch Annie’ and Martha Nelson. On one occasion his wife caught him with Dutch Annie, and, after a quarrel, they separated. She went to Petersburg, where she remained about a month, when she returned, and soon went to living with him again. About a year before her death she found him hidden in the rooms of the Nelson woman, and he then said: ‘Well, now you have caught me, I am going to live with her.’ She used to beg him to give this woman up, and he frequently promised to do so, but still continued his relations with her. He was at her rooms very often, ate there and slept there, passed as her husband, and even assumed her name. During the year preceding the homicide he drank to excess, called his wife vile names, beat her, and threatened to take her life. In July, 1896, he threw a water pitcher at her, saying, ‘I will kill you yet;’ but some one caught it, and it failed to hit her. A month or so later he struck her, and both her eyes were blackened, so that for two weeks she wore a veil when she went out. About six weeks before the homicide he said to one of the witnesses, referring to his wife, ‘Well, I am after having another fight; I just beat her;’ and two weeks later he told the same witness that he had beaten her again. On the 2d of September, 1896, she started for the depot in order to go to Petersburg to attend the funeral of a sister who had just died. She was seated in a car on the elevated railroad by the side of another sister, who was going with her, and he said to her, ‘If you don't come back over here, I will beat hell out of you.’ On the same occasion he asked her how she expected him to live while she was gone, and she replied, ‘Howard, how do you expect me to go home and leave money to support you while I am gone?’ He said, ‘Well, you don't care anything about me, and I have a good mind to cut your throat and send you to hell where your other sister is.’ She was gone 10 days, and on her return he struck her because she had not written to him during her absence. She was an industrious, hard-working laundress, and the evidence raises no suspicion against her character. While she sometimes swore at her husband, during their differences, she does not appear to have ever offered him violence, or to have resisted when he assaulted her. She was below the average height, and was of slight build. The height or size of the defendant does not appear in the record before us, but was, of course, apparent to the jury. On the 21st of September, 1896, she left him for the third time, and went to live with her sister, at No. 159 West Thirtieth street, while he went to live with Martha Nelson. The same day he stored his furniture, but, not having the money to pay the expressman for moving it, he handed his revolver, an ordinary self-acting six-shooter, about 6 inches long and of 32 caliber, to his friend William Green, and requested him to pawn it for the sum of 50 cents. Mr. Green did so, and handed the money and the pawn ticket to the defendant, who used the money to pay for moving his furniture. On the 21st of October following, which was five days before the homicide, he pawned his overcoat for $2, redeemed the revolver, and bought some cartridges for it. On that day, or the day before, he and the Nelson woman had been turned out of their rooms for nonpayment of rent. Two or three days later a friend asked him to lend him the revolver, but he refused, saying it might get him into trouble. At about the same time he went to the house where his wife resided and asked for her, and her sister answered that she was not in, but was out at work. At this time his hands were full of cartridges, and he appeared nervous and excited. He took the revolver out of his pocket, and began to load it, but soon said, ‘Never mind, I will fix this some other time.’ He also said that before many days went over her head his wife would be sorry for everything she had ever done to him. The day before the homicide a friend met him walking towards the house where his wife lived, and as usual said ‘Hello, Howard;’ but he seemed absorbed in thought, and made no reply, although he was perfectly sober, and it was his custom when thus saluted to say ‘Hello’ in return. October 26th, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he was seen by a witness, who was at work across the street, to enter his wife's apartments, and about 15 or 20 minutes later the report came that she was dead.

The deceased left her rooms that morning with her sister at about 9 o'clock, and, after doing an errand, went to a magistrate from whom she obtained a summons against the defendant for nonsupport. She went home alone, and about 4 o'clock her sister returned. She found the outer door shut, but not locked, and the rooms full of smoke from gunpowder. The furniture was not disturbed, and there was no sign of a struggle. Maggie Scott lay dead on the floor of the front room, face downward, the body warm and bleeding from four bullet wounds. She had changed her dress since she left home in the morning, but was dressed to go out, with her hat, veil, and cape on. The keys of the room and her pocket book, containing a little change, were beneath her, and by her side, in four pieces, was the frame in which she kept her marriage certificate, but the certificate itself could not be found. The summons was found inside of her clothing, where it could not be seen until her dress was unbuttoned, and the defendant does not claim to have ever seen or heard of it. A bullet had entered between the second and third ribs, above the right nipple, and passed through the lung, taking a downward course. Another entered the body on the right side, between the fifth and sixth ribs, and also passed through the lung, but took a course slightly upward. There was a bullet wound three inches deep at the junction of the neck and the right shoulder, with the course downward and towards the middle line of the body. The fourth bullet wound was on the inside of the right forearm, directly over the elbow, and about two inches above it was a small bruised spot about the size of a five-cent piece. There were no other signs of violence on the body. An expert testified that, assuming the line of the bullets to have been parallel to the floor, the position of the body, when the first wound above described was made, must have been stooping over and turned slightly towards the left; when the second was made, still stooping over and turned towards a different position to the left; and when the third was made, stooping lower yet. No inference could be drawn from the fourth wound as to the position of the body when it was inflicted.

The police promptly searched for the defendant, but could not find him until the next day, when he was found at the house of an aunt residing in Brooklyn, locked in a closet upstairs. The door was pried open with a hatchet, and as he was seized he said, ‘Use me well, and I will make a clean breast of it.’ The arresting officer searched him for the revolver, but, not finding it, asked, ‘What have you done with the revolver?’ and the defendant answered, ‘I threw it into the river on my way to Brooklyn.’ He was then asked, ‘How many shots did you fire at your wife?’ and he answered, ‘Three or four, captain, I cannot remember; I was so excited at the time.’ ‘What was the cause of this shooting?’ said the officer. ‘It was jealousy,’ replied the prisoner. He did not claim that the shooting was accidental, either on that occasion or when he was taken to the station house, where, being told that he was charged with killing his wife, he replied, ‘Yes; I shot her.’ On his way over from Brooklyn he said to the officer, ‘We had a quarrel together, and she threw the frame at me, and it fell on the floor and broke, and I put the certificate in the stove and burned it in the house there.’ He also asked to be allowed to look at his wife's body before it was buried. His aunt testified that after he arrived at her house he said that he had shot his wife. From her house he wrote to Martha Nelson, addressing her as ‘Dear Martha,’ and saying that he would let her hear from him later.

The only witness for the defense was the defendant himself, who contradicted but little of the evidence given by the witnesses for the people. He testified that he lived happily with his wife for about a year, and that then she got to be...