People v. Wright
| Citation | 89 Mich. 70,50 N.W. 792 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1891 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WRIGHT. |
Error to circuit court, Benzie county; FRED. H. ALDRICH, Judge.
Charles T. Wright was convicted of murder in the first degree, and assigns error. Affirmed.
N. A. Parker and Thos. A. Wilson for appellant.
A A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and Geo. G. Covell, Pros. Atty., for the People.
The respondent was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Benzie circuit court on April 30, 1890, and on the 1st day of May, 1890, was sentenced to state-prison at Jackson for life. The information charged that the respondent killed one Frank E. Thurber, at Aral, in the township of Lake, Benzie county August 10, 1889. Upon the trial the killing was not denied by the respondent. The circumstances surrounding the transaction, as claimed by the prosecution and shown by the evidence, were that the sheriff of that county, claiming to have made a levy upon certain saw-logs under a writ of attachment, sent his deputy, Neal A. Marshall, to Aral, to take charge of the logs, to see that they were not removed. These logs were the property of the Otter Creek Lumber Company, which was carrying on a lumber business at Aral. The respondent was president and manager of that company. Aral is a small settlement around the mill of the company, situate on Otter creek. A north and south highway crosses the creek above the mill. West of the highway and south of the creek a saw-mill, blacksmith shop, and carpenter shop are situated. A part of the lumber from the mill is piled upon each side of the highway and in the highway south of the creek, leaving a roadway in the highway between the lumber piles. North of the creek and west of the highway are situate the company's store, its barns, etc., together with two or three dwelling-houses. A highway crosses this north and south highway from 20 to 30 rods north of the creek, extending east and west. East of the point where these roads cross is an hotel. The bridge crossing Otter creek in the highway is so situated that it can be removed, and this is frequently done, for the passage of logs down the creek. The logs in controversy were upon the bank of the creek, above this bridge, at the time the deputy-sheriff went there by direction of the sheriff to take possession. At this time the respondent, as president of the company, was in possession, and proceeding to roll the logs into the creek. It appears that the trouble originated in the following manner: Some days previous to the 10th of August the sheriff of the county attempted to make a levy upon these logs by writ of attachment, and some days after the levy he found it necessary to place some one in charge of the logs, and so sent his deputy, Neal A. Marshall, to take charge of them, and see they were not removed. The respondent caused a writ of replevin to be issued out of the circuit court for that county to regain possession from the officer. The writ was placed in the hands of the coroner, and, the respondent failing to give the bond required by the statute, the logs were released. This was on the morning of the 10th of August. Immediately thereafter the respondent armed himself with a Marlin repeating rifle, and went to the roll-way with his men, for the purpose of forcibly taking possession of the logs, rolling them into the creek. Deputy-Sheriff Marshall came there soon after, and forbade the respondent and his men from removing the logs. The respondent said to him, "Don't you molest my men," and, being told by Marshall that he would, raised his gun, and pointed it towards Marshall, and said, "If you do, I will drop you." Something of a dispute arose between Marshall and the respondent at this time. A part of the men employed by the respondent were Indians. Marshall arrested one of the Indians, who was assisting in rolling the logs. The controversy was kept up from about 10 o'clock in the forenoon until noon, when Marshall went away. He returned in the afternoon, and then arrested two other men; but, being unable to prevent the rolling of the logs, Marshall said to his men, "Come up to the hotel; we cannot do anything with them;" and he and his men then went away. After the logs were rolled in, the company's men went to their work at the mill, and the respondent went to the barn, left his gun there, and went to the company's store. He soon after returned to the barn, took the gun, went to the mill, and from there to the blacksmith shop. While in the blacksmith shop, Mr. Reid, the blacksmith, says he looked out of the window, and told respondent that some one was coming down the road. The respondent took his gun, which he had put into a corner of the shop, and said: "It is a good thing to have plenty of sand, and, if they interfered with him again, he would fix them." He then left the blacksmith shop, carrying his rifle, and went towards the lumber piles in the highway south of the creek. Neal A. Marshall, the deputy-sheriff, after leaving the roll-way in the afternoon, went to the hotel on the east and west highway, and between 2 and 3 o'clock, coming out of the hotel, met Frank E. Thurber. Thurber was a practicing physician, and had his medicine case with him at that time. This case he left in a house north of the creek, and accompanied Marshall to the north and south highway, and down that, crossing the bridge which spans Otter creek. At this time two men were engaged in replacing the bridge, and an Indian by the name of Pahmagesick, standing above the bridge, was engaged in pushing the logs down the stream. As Marshall and Thurber crossed the bridge the respondent came out from between the lumber piles into the public highway and met them. The three passed south of the bridge down the highway between the lumber piles. The testimony leaves it in some uncertainty as to what took place between the three at this time, but it does appear that after they had passed south some three or four rods Marshall and the respondent faced each other, and came together, and had a struggle for the possession of the rifle. In a few moments Marshall released his hold upon respondent, let go of the rifle, and backed away from him, and, when some eight or ten feet away, the respondent quickly threw up the muzzle of the rifle, and fired, when Marshall fell dead, being shot through the upper part of the body. At this time Thurber was in the rear, and a little to the left of the respondent. The respondent turned upon him, and a struggle took place between them for the possession of the rifle. In the struggle the two weaved back and forth, approaching the bridge, each having a hand-hold of the rifle and their other hands clasping each other. When near the bridge the respondent released his hold upon the rifle, reached to his hip-pocket, and drew therefrom a revolver, placed it to Thurber's head and fired, and then, quickly placing the revolver to Thurber's breast, fired again, instantly killing him. The two men at the bridge, named McCormick and Peck, witnessed a part of the affray between the respondent and Marshall, saw the gun discharged and Marshall fall, when they started away from the scene of the conflict, but heard the other two shots
by which Thurber came to his death. The Indian, Pahmagesick, claims to have witnessed the whole affray. Immediately after Thurber was killed the respondent passed to the bridge, and above it, and, seeing Pahmagesick, asked him if he had witnessed the shooting, and, being told that he had, asked him to say nothing about it. The respondent went from there to the store, and shortly after sent another Indian, by the name of Lahala, for Pahmagesick, and again requested him to say nothing of the shooting. Soon after that respondent fled to the woods. The news of the shooting soon spread through the community, and that evening the prosecuting attorney of the county and the deputy-sheriff with others arrived upon the scene. The respondent was not to be found, and, it being reported that the Indian Lahala knew of respondent's place of concealment, steps were taken by the prosecuting attorney and deputy-sheriff to compel Lahala to disclose his whereabouts, and to that end a rope was procured, a noose put around Lahala's neck, the other end of the rope thrown over the limb of a tree, and Lahala suspended. The parties were not able to find the whereabouts of the respondent by this means, and these operations ceased. During the evening of that day the respondent came from the woods and surrendered himself to the officers, and was at once taken to Frankfort, the county-seat, and placed in jail. The trial came on before a jury, lasting nearly three weeks, and was concluded on August 10th. The information charged murder in the first degree. Before the impaneling of the jury, and at the time the respondent was arraigned upon the information, and before pleading thereto, his counsel moved to quash the information, on the grounds that the respondent had had no preliminary examination before the magistrate, and that the return of the magistrate did not show that respondent had waived examination. The prosecuting attorney thereupon asked an order from the court directing the magistrate to make further return. A further return was made by the magistrate, who then certified that the respondent did waive examination upon the charge contained in the complaint and warrant, which had previously been returned to the circuit court. The court thereupon overruled respondent's motion to quash the information. This action on the part of the trial court is complained of by respondent's counsel, and error is assigned upon it.
It is contended in this court that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to proceed under that information, and that the case falls within the principles laid...
To continue reading
Request your trial