People v. Stewart
| Decision Date | 07 June 1889 |
| Citation | 75 Mich. 21,42 N.W. 662 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. STEWART. |
Error to circuit court, Lenawee county; VICTOR H. LANE, Judge.
Indictment of James Stewart for murder. Defendant was convicted, and brings error.
D B. Morgan, Pros. Atty., for the People.
The respondent in this case was charged with the murder of James Hall, and was tried for the crime charged in the Lenawee circuit court at the November term, 1887; and the jury disagreed. He was again tried at the February term, 1888, and convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to imprisonment at Jackson for the period of eight years. The respondent asks for a review in this court of the proceedings under which he was convicted. The record includes a bill of exceptions containing all the testimony and which shows the conviction was had upon circumstantial evidence. In many of its features the case is a peculiar one. It appears that on the 3d day of October, 1887, Hall came to the village of Hudson, and was seeking work upon a railroad then being constructed through the village. In the evening of that day he visited several saloons and restaurants, and became intoxicated: spent some money at several of these places; and, while he claimed to have plenty of money, very little was exhibited. Hall engaged lodgings for the night at the Rodney House, and paid, in advance for the same, 25 cents. Mr. Witherell was proprietor. He then wandered about the village in the afternoon, smoking and drinking at saloons; and a portion of the time in the evening was followed by two boys by the name of Casgrove and Moriarty. They were about 17 years old. Moriarty first saw Hall in the evening about 7 o'clock near Montgomery's saloon passed him on the walk; and next saw him at the corner of Main and Market streets near Mr. Lawrence's store. Casgrove was with him. They all went into the Rodney House. This was about 10 o'clock at night. Hall was so drunk then Mr. Witherell did not want to keep him overnight, and paid him back his money he had advanced for his lodging, and directed him up through an alley, near the Rodney House, and there he went into a shed. He was driven out of this place by a Mr. Spalding, who led him out on Market street. The boys then followed him, and when he got along near Lawrence Corners, the two boys were met by the respondent, and the three went down near where Hall then was and followed him. He went staggering along, and when they caught up with him, Stewart told him he was the marshal and took hold of him, and one of the boys took hold of his hand and turned him back the other way, which he continued until they got to the corner, where they claim Stewart told him he was not an officer, and was only fooling with him. They then went with him up through an alley about 15 rods to an old building in the rear of a furniture store. The building was about 12 feet square, and contained some bed slats and springs, or excelsior, from which Moriarty and Stewart prepared a place for Hall to lie down upon, and he went and laid down. The three claim that they then left him for the night with the door to the building or shed open, and never saw him again alive. Between one and two o'clock the shed was discovered to be on fire; and, upon an examination of the premises as soon as it could be done, it was discovered that the dead body of Hall was among the debris, charred and disfigured by the fire. The post mortem examination disclosed that, when the body was found, it laid upon the right side with a hole in the left temple made by some blunt instrument. The fracture in the skull was an inch and a half wide, by two inches long. By the side of the body when discovered laid an iron bar, the end of which compared favorably with the wound in the head. It was a bar that was kept in the shed, and was in there the night before. The physicians swore that the wound might have been made in the head in various ways. At the time of the fire, Moriarty lived with his parents in the town of Wright in Hillsdale county, but was then stopping in Hudson and at work on a railroad. Casgrove then lived in Hudson, and was a clerk in a drug-store. The respondent, when charged with the crime of killing Hall, protested his innocence, and has always asserted it. The foregoing facts, with some contradictory statements alleged to have been made by Stewart to the officers and others, were the evidence principally relied upon for conviction by the prosecution. It is a little difficult, from the record or briefs in the case, to ascertain the theory of counsel for the people beyond that the respondent was the last person seen with Hall before he died; and that the former had the opportunity to commit the crime charged. It is not shown that respondent had any ill will towards Hall when alive, or that Hall was in the possession of money or had anything else that Stewart wanted, or that would furnish a motive for the killing. It would appear to be claimed that, not only did the respondent do the killing, but subsequently set the building or shed on fire. There may be some question whether the court should not have directed the verdict in the case. We, however, inasmuch as there has been a verdict against the respondent, will consider the case as presented by the record, assuming it was a proper one for the jury to pass upon.
We think the fact that the homicide was committed in Lenawee county was sufficiently proved, and no error was committed in so ruling.
Charles M. Croswell was reporter for the Adrian Times, and had a conversation with the respondent at the Lake Shore depot in Adrian while he was in the officer's custody. The same officer had arrested the respondent, and had several previous talks with him in regard to the homicide, and Stewart's connection with it. When respondent was brought before the magistrate, the officer, who was a deputy-sheriff, said to him: ***" The officer testified that Stewart made the remark, twice "I did not strike the blow." Mr. CARSON, who was the justice who issued the warrant for respondent's arrest, was present at this conversation between the deputy-sheriff and respondent, and states, also, that the deputy told the respondent he had better tell the truth; that it would be better for him, or words to that effect; that Stewart made no statement until the officers asked for it. "They told him they knew he had been lying; that they had got evidence that he had been lying to them; that they had ascertained that he had lied as to his whereabouts in accounting for himself during certain hours of the night of the fire; and he had better tell the truth; that it would be better for him." That at this time there was an officer upon each side of him; ' That the officers then said to him: that respondent then said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial