People v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 07 January 1885
• Citation: 55 Mich. 506,21 N.W. 905
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. WILSON.

21 N.W. 905

55 Mich. 506

PEOPLE v. WILSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 7, 1885

Error to the recorder's court of Detroit.

Allen H. Frazer and Levi T. Griffin, for respondent, appellant.

Atty Gen. Jacob J. Van Riper, for the People.

COOLEY, J.

The respondent was tried and has been convicted of the murder of Alonzo E. Bullard, who, at the time, was a policeman of the city of Detroit. The following is a condensed statement of the facts developed on the trial:

On Wednesday, November 27, 1883, the respondent was residing on Canfield street, Detroit, near Wabash avenue. At about 6 o'clock in the evening of that day he had, or pretended to have, an errand at the grocery-store of one Heise, a little distance from his house, on the avenue, and went out to attend to it. Arriving at the store, according to his story, he saw Heise standing at the door-way absorbed in conversation with another person. A barrel of oil was in front of the store, and it occurred to the respondent that he might roll it away without being observed. He had been drinking, and his subsequent claim was that he proposed to himself the rolling off of the barrel by way of joke merely. He did roll it away without at the time being observed, and put it in his own front yard, where he left it until bedtime. He then rolled it into a shed attached to the house, and locked the door. In the morning the respondent who was a painter by trade, started out, ostensibly to procure work, but found his way, after a time, to the Russell House, where, after noon, he was in the company of Freeman the baggage-master of the hotel, who was an acquaintance. Heise, in the mean time, had missed his barrel of oil. The barrel was painted a light blue color, and it was easily traced on the stones where it had been rolled. The loss was reported to the police department, and Officer Bullard proceeded with Heise to investigate. They followed the trail to respondent's place, and, looking through the cracks in the shed, saw the barrel there, which Heise thought he identified as his own. Bullard then knocked at the door of the house, which was opened by Mrs. Wilson, and the officer asked of her permission to go into the shed. She said it was locked, and her husband had the key, and it would be necessary to wait until he returned, which would be between 6 and 7 at night. Bullard said, "All right;" he would be back at that time, and went away. Heise was then sent off for a search-warrant, which was obtained, and delivered to Officer Bendall, of the police force, who proceeded with it to respondent's place, meeting Bullard there about half past 3. Bendall called on Mrs. Wilson, and said to her he had a search-warrant for a barrel of oil, and it would save a good deal of trouble if she would give it up. She repeated that her husband had the key to the shed, and they must wait for his return; but they declining to do this, she went and got a number of keys for them to try in the lock. None of them fitted it, and she then went to the bed-room, and brought one from there, with which the door of the shed was opened, and the barrel found, partly covered with rubbish. Mrs. Wilson began to cry, and said if her husband had taken anything it was only for "devilment," and she would give it up. Bendall then turned the barrel over to Heise, and inquired of Mrs. Wilson where her husband worked, and she replied, as he says, that he was a painter by trade, and worked for Godfrey & Dean, and added that he was not the man most to blame; it was George Smith. Bullard and Heise then started off to procure a warrant, and Bendall went to Godfrey & Dean's for respondent. On making inquiry he found respondent did not work there, and he then went back to the neighborhood of respondent's house, and waited about there until about 5 o'clock.

When the officers left respondent's place, Mrs. Wilson started out to find her husband. She went immediately to the Russell House, where she saw Freeman, and asked him where respondent was. Freeman said he had been there just a little while before with Hughes, and he would send Hughes out for him. He did so, and respondent soon came in. Mrs. Wilson told him what had taken place at the house, and urged him to go home and see about it. He said he would go home bye and bye, and when she urged that he go with her, he declined, and sent Hughes. When they got to the house Hughes threw off his coat, and said he should make himself at home. In a little while officer Bendall came in, bringing with him officer Bullard, who had come back, but without bringing a warrant of arrest. Bendall asked Mrs. Wilson why she had told him her husband worked at Godfrey & Dean's, and she replied she thought he did. Hughes was then observed by the officers, neither of whom knew Wilson, though he had been described to them, and Bendall said, "Mrs. Wilson, who is this man here?" Bendall says she replied it was her husband, and he then inquired of the man if his name was George Wilson, and the man replied it was. Bendall then told him he had a warrant for him for the larceny of a barrel of oil. Mrs. Wilson in her testimony denies having said Hughes was her husband, but admits that the officers were lead to suppose he was, and they arrested him as the thief, and started off with him. On the street, when they got a good view of Hughes, the officers saw he was a much older man than respondent had been represented to be, and Bendall said to him, "You are not George Wilson." Hughes replied, "I never said I was." Some angry words then passed, and Hughes was turned loose. Bendall then, who was Bullard's superior officer, told the latter to hang around until about 7 o'clock, and if Wilson did not come in the mean time, to then go to the station-house.

On the Monday preceding these occurrences, respondent had made arrangements with George Smith to cross the river to Canada with him for duck-shooting. On Wednesday he went up to his house a little before 6 o'clock, and proposed to start off at once on this expedition. His wife wanted him to see about the oil, but he made light of what she said. He had been drinking, and claimed afterwards to have been intoxicated. He had a loaded gun in the house, and with this he started off, bidding his wife and babe good-bye at the door. Bullard had been watching the house, and had seen respondent go in, and started to arrest him. He came up to respondent almost immediately after he left the house, and made attempt to arrest him. Exactly what words passed between the parties can only be known from the ante mortem statements of Bullard, and the testimony of the respondent. Quite a number of persons, however, heard the discharge of a gun, which is not disputed to have been the fowling-piece in respondent's hands, followed almost immediately by three lighter discharges, which were from a pistol in the hands of Bullard. Respondent claimed that Bullard fired four times,--once before he fired, and three times afterwards,--but there is no supporting evidence of this, except that when Bullard's pistol was found there were empty shells in all the four barrels, and some witnesses testified that all the barrels had the appearance of having been recently discharged.

Respondent ran off after the shooting, and Bullard was found by people who came up to be dying from a mortal wound in the abdomen. He stated to a number of persons that he was shot by respondent, whom he was endeavoring to arrest. Respondent, after the shooting, went off and found Smith, and proposed to go then for their hunt. Smith assented, and they went to the river at the foot of Campau avenue. Instead of taking the ferry they followed up the river to Hamtramck, where Wilson procured a row-boat, and they crossed the river. When they got over into Canada, respondent, for the first time, told Smith about the shooting, and Smith then declined to go with him further, and turned about and recrossed the river. Respondent went on alone, and went to the farm of one Caldwell. The next day was Thanksgiving day. The morning Detroit papers contained an account of the shooting and death of the officer, naming respondent as the murderer, and stating that a reward was offered for his apprehension. A copy of one of the papers was seen by a man at Caldwell's, who handed it to respondent. Respondent read it without much remark. Soon after officers from Detroit were seen coming, and respondent ran and hid himself in the barn. Officer Fitzpatrick followed, found, and arrested him. Officer Swartwood, while he was in custody, undertook to inflict violence upon him, but this was prevented by others. Respondent consented to be taken back to Detroit, and he was so taken back immediately. Meantime his wife had been taken to the police station, where she remained a number of days without complaint being made against her. Proceedings being then taken for her release, a formal complaint was made, but though she was further detained on this, it was not followed up.

A great number of exceptions were taken to the rulings of the recorder on the trial, and they have been argued in this court with much earnestness and ability. They begin with exceptions to the latitude allowed to the counsel for the people in making his opening statement of the case, and they were interposed at nearly every stage in the proceedings. Such of them as appear to us to require attention will be noticed in their order.

1. The complaint of the latitude permitted to the prosecuting officer in his opening has no just foundation. That officer himself might, with more reason, have protested against the interruptions to which he was subjected while he was stating the case which he expected to prove. Since the decision of the case of Scripps v. Reilly, 38 Mich 10, an impression seems to...