People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 06 December 1898 |
| Citation | 77 N.W. 248,118 Mich. 692 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS. |
Error to superior court of Grand Rapids; Edwin A. Burlingame Judge.
George Williams was convicted of an assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than the crime of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Fred A. Maynard, Atty. Gen., Frank A. Rodgers Pros. Atty., and Benn M. Corwin, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Nathan P. Allen (Brown & Adams, of counsel), for defendant.
Respondent was convicted in the superior court of Grand Rapids of an assault upon one Frank Dailey, with intent to do him great bodily harm less than the crime of murder. The information was filed under section 9122a, 2 How. Ann. St. It appears that the respondent was convicted under a former complaint made by Dailey, the complaining witness in the present case. That case came to this court, and was affirmed. City of Grand Rapids v. Williams, 70 N.W. 547. The case being remanded, with directions to proceed to judgment, William was sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment in the county jail his term expiring about July 1, 1897. The testimony in the present case introduced by the prosecution shows that, on the 4th of August following his release, respondent was fishing in Grand river from the footbridge, when Dailey, in company with a Mr. Bennett, crossed the bridge. Dailey passed the respondent some feet, and stopped to talk with a Mr Tenhopen. After some conversation, Dailey asked Tenhopen "What are they fishing with,-worms?" At this respondent said, "Who are you talking to,-me?" Dailey responded, "No; to this gentleman." Respondent then said, "I thought you would have a lot of gall to speak to me;" adding some profane words. Dailey responded, "I am not talking to you," and started to go away, when respondent ran up behind him, knocked him down, and kicked him eight or ten times on the head. Mr. Bennett started to separate them, when respondent took out a knife, and struck at him, and said, "I will stick this into you." Bennett retreated, when respondent again knocked Dailey down, and again kicked him. Dailey finally got up, and started to run across the bridge, but was followed up by respondent, who overtook him, knocked him down again, kicked him, at the same time striking at him with a knife, and cutting a gash in his finger three-fourths of an inch in length, and saying to him, "You made me serve ninety days in jail, and I will cut your _____ white heart out." Mr. Bennett then called others who were passing by to come and help him, when the respondent turned, and ran back across the bridge. On his return across the bridge, he stated to a Mr. Moon that he would kill Dailey if he had to follow him to his house to do it. Dailey was badly injured, and confined to his house for some two weeks or more. The respondent was called as a witness in his own behalf. His testimony does not vary materially from the other witnesses as to what occurred, though he denies having used the knife on Dailey. He does admit, however, that he drew it on Bennett, and that he knocked Dailey down, and kicked him, as described by the witnesses for the prosecution. Under his own testimony, the jury might have properly found the respondent guilty of the offense charged.
Six errors are assigned by counsel for respondent.
1. A continuance was asked by respondent, for the reason that Mr. Bennett, one of the jurors for that term of court, was one of the res gest� witnesses for the prosecution, his name being indorsed on the information. This was denied. It appears that Mr. Bennett was on the bridge, and present at the time of the assault by respondent. The jurors, when called upon the panel, were fully examined, and were each shown to be qualified to sit. They were asked about their acquaintance with Mr. Bennett. Some of them had no acquaintance whatever with him, and those who knew him stated that such acquaintance would in no wise bias their minds. The mere fact that Bennett was returned as a juror for the term did not prejudice the rights of the respondent, though Bennett was one of the witnesses to be called in the case. If continuances are to be granted because some of the jurors are acquainted with the witnesses for the prosecution, it would be difficult to bring criminal cases on for trial at any term. There is no such rule as contended for. The matter of continuance rested in the discretion of the court, and there was no abuse of it here.
2. The trial of the cause was commenced on January 17, 1898. It appears that on January 10th the prosecuting attorney indorsed the names of two witnesses on the information. Before doing so, he called one of the counsel for the respondent to the rooms of the judge of the court, and stated to him that he proposed to so indorse the names. Counsel made no objection at the time, but thereafter, on consultation with the other counsel, objection was made, and the court was asked to strike these witnesses' names from the information. This was refused. Section 9549, 2 How. Ann. St., provides that the prosecuting attorney shall indorse on all informations the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of filing the same; and, at such time before the trial of any case...
To continue reading
Request your trial