People v. Willy
| Decision Date | 16 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 14143.,14143. |
| Citation | 301 Ill. 307,133 N.E. 859 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WILLY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Jo Davies County; Oscar E. Heard, Judge.
Francis X. Willy was convicted of murder and brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Harry C. Tear, State's Atty., of Galena, and Floyd E. Britton, of Springfield (Frank T. Sheean, of Galena, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, Willy, was indicted and convicted in the circuit court of Jo Daviess county for the murder of Earl A. Fitch, and sentenced to the penitentiary at Joliet for life. The record has been brought to this court by writ of error.
Francis X. Willy (also called Frank Willy) was at the time of the homicide, June 19, 1919, a bachelor, 54 years of age, and had lived in Galena all his life, residing for the last 15 years with his sister, Paulina Armbruster, a widow, in a home owned by her. The evidence showed that the Armbruster home adjoined the Fitch home on the south, both fronting on the east side of Bench street; that the foundation walls of the houses were parallel and about 5 feet apart; that the superstructures of the two buildings were continuous, giving the appearance of one building, and that the distance from these buildings to the cement curb was about 8 feet, making a wide cement walk. The evidence also shows that there is an electric light pole (sometimes called in the evidence a telephone pole) about 14 inches in diameter, standing at the edge of the sidewalk on the south line of the Armbruster property, 22 feet from the center of the front doorway of the Armbruster home; that between the foundation walls of these two homes there was a space called in the proceedings the ‘alleyway,’ the bottom of which was 7 1/2 feet below the level of the sidewalk, and which was entered from the front by a stairway leading from the Bench street level; that the entrances from the front doors of these two houses were practically on the street level, there being but one low step to the sidewalk; that the entrance to the Armbruster home is through a storm, or inclosed porch, which extends about 4 feet out from the front wall of the house, and that the Fitch home had a porch in front of the front door; That between this storm porch and the Fitch porch is the entrance into the alleyway between the houses, which is closed by inclined doors such as are often seen on outside entrances to cellars, and that when the door on the Armbruster side was open into the alleyway it leaned back against the storm porch; that there was a doorway opening from the basement of the Armbruster home into the alleyway, and Mrs. Armbruster apparently used the basement for a kitchen and dining room. It would appear from the photographs offered in evidence that the ground slopes down considerably as it goes from Bench street to the back yards of these houses. It further appears from the evidence that there was no doorway from the Fitch home into the alleyway, although there is a small window opening into it; that there was a leaky spout on the Fitch property leading through this alleyway, and that when it rained the water would accumulate in the alleyway; that the alleyway was used largely for storage of wood and other things by the Armbruster family, Mrs. Armbruster testifying that she claimed to own the entire alleyway space, while Mrs. Fitch stated that, while the alleyway had been used largely, if not entirely, by the Armbruster family, the Fitch family claimed half the alleyway space, but had never used it. The evidence shows that on account of the moist condition of the alleyway Mrs. Armbruster for several years had insisted on opening the inclined door next to her residence in order to air and dry the alleyway; that this action on her part was objected to by Fitch, who did not want the inclined door left open, and this led to sharp disputes between them, and that sometimes, the plaintiff in error claims the evidence shows, Fitch used physical force in preventing Mrs. Armbruster from keeping the alleyway door open.
The evidence shows that the deceased was 39 years old, about 6 feet tall, erect, broad-shouldered and active, weighing from 180 to 200 pounds, and apparently very athletic and vigorous. For many years previous to his death he was employed as chshier of the Merchants' National Bank of Galena. Plaintiff in error had practically all his life been a music teacher, teaching the violin, clariionet, cornet, and other instruments. The evidence in his behalf tends to show that he had been in poor health and unable to perform hard labor for 25 years; that his music pupils called on him at his home, where the lessons were given, and that during the 6 years the Fitches lived adjoining the Armbruster residence there had been complaint made to Fitch by Willy of the noise made by the Fitch and other children playing in front of his house while he was giving lessons, and that this dispute had added to the trouble over the alleyway between the families.
The evidence tends to show that on the forenoon of the day of the homicide Mrs. Armbruster opened the alleyway door on her side of the property line, and it stood open, leaning against the storm porch, when Fitch came home for his lunch at 12:30 p. m. According to the testimony given by plaintiff in error, Fitch saw the door open when he came home and slammed it down, went into his house, and sat down in the front room with his cap on and picked up the paper-according to the argument of counsel for the plaintiff in error for the purpose of seeing whether Mrs. Armbruster attempted to open the door again. Plaintiff in error testified that his sister did open the door shortly after, and Fitch came rapidly out of his house and insisted on its being closed, and during the dispute over the question he violently pushed Mrs. Armbruster into the storm porch, using loud language during the discussion. Plaintiff in error heard the discussion and his sister scream, and hastened toward the porch door, and, seeing the physical conflict between Fitch and his sister, turned back in the house and obtained a revolver and returned to the storm porch and told Fitch to let his sister alone, pulling the revolver from his hip pocket at the same time. Plaintiff in error testified that he pulled this revolver for the purpose of frightening Fitch and making him leave off the struggle with his sister, and that he took part in the struggle to protect his sister. The evidence shows that during this struggle the revolver was filed once or twice, plaintiff in error claiming that he was not firing at Fitch, but that the revolver went off in the struggle between them without any intent on his part to shoot Fitch. Mrs. Fitch, on the other hand, testified that when her husband came home from the bank that noon he started to read the paper, but went with one of his daughters to look for a ball which she had lost in the alleyway; that they did not find the ball, and Fitch came in and sat down in a chair in the bay window in the front room, which extends out toward Bench street, and started to read the paper; that she was then preparing lunch, and went into the kitchen to bring some of the food into the dining room when she heard two shots fired close together; that about 16 seconds after she saw Fitch sitting in the bay window she saw him out in front of the building, on the outer side of the electric light pole, and plaintiff in error, with a revolver in his hand, moving about on the other side of the pole, his sister standing about 2 feet behind him; that witness ran out in front of the building, and, thinking that plaintiff in error was trying to shoot her husband from the other side of the pole, grabbed hold of him in an attempt to interfere with his aim, and asked him not to shoot, and while she was struggling with him he fired the revolver again so close to her that one of her arms was slightly burned by the powder. This bullet was apparently the one found imbedded in the electric light pole after the tragedy. Plaintiff in error's account of what happened then is as follows:
Immediately after the fatal shot was fired Fitch staggered backward, Mrs. Fitch coming to his assistance and endeavoring to support him. Within a few...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wolski
... ... Evidence of character must be confined to proof of the accused's general reputation among his neighbors and associates at or [83 Ill.App.3d 29] before the commission of the offense. People v. Willy (1922), 301 Ill. 307, 133 N.E. 859; People v. Bascomb (1979), 74 Ill.App.3d 392, 30 Ill.Dec. 262, 392 N.E.2d 1130 ... William Hoy, a co-worker of defendant, was also called to testify and when asked by counsel for defendant's "reputation in the community for violence", he ... ...
-
People v. Williams
... ... (People v. Greer (1980), 79 Ill.2d 103, 37 Ill.Dec. 313, 402 N.E.2d 203; People v. Magby (1967), 37 Ill.2d 197, 226 N.E.2d 33.) There was no abuse of discretion here ... In People v. Willy (1921), 301 Ill. 307, 133 N.E. 859, which is cited by the defendant, it was said: "To permit counsel to read to the jury from the transcript written up by the shorthand reporter or from the attorney's own memorandum would tend to over-emphasize the testimony of the witness which is thus re-read." ... ...
-
People v. Patterson
...acts are not admissible to show another person's character as evidence of his conduct on a particular occasion. (See People v. Willy (1921), 301 Ill. 307, 318, 133 N.E. 859; M. Graham, Cleary & Graham's Handbook of Illinois Evidence § 404.4, at 186 (5th ed. 1990) (generally, evidence of spe......
-
People v. Barrow
...first introduces evidence of his good character. See People v. Lewis (1962), 25 Ill.2d 442, 445, 185 N.E.2d 254; People v. Willy (1921), 301 Ill. 307, 317, 133 N.E. Whatever probative value the exhibits might have had was clearly outweighed by their prejudicial impact, and we hold that admi......