Pigg v. State

• Citation: 145 Ind. 560,43 N.E. 309
• Parties: PIGG v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 27 March 1896
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

145 Ind. 560
43 N.E. 309

PIGG
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 27, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Sullivan county; W. W. Moffett, Judge.

Mack Pigg was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.

[43 N.E. 310]

John S. Bays, for appellant. W. L. Slinkard, Pros. Atty., Wm. A. Ketcham, Atty. Gen., and F. E. Matson, for the State.

HOWARD, J.

The appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree, for the killing of Charles S. Lockard. By the verdict of the jury he was found guilty of manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the state's prison for 21 years. It is contended that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The reasons for the motion call in question the correctness of the court's ruling (1) in relation to the misconduct of counsel for the state, (2) in relation to the admission and exclusion of certain evidence, and (3) in the giving of instructions to the jury; and also call in question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.

There is some conflict in the evidence, but that which sustains the verdict shows: That the appellant and the deceased were engaged together in keeping a saloon in a small town, named Lyonton, or Buel City, in Sullivan county; that the deceased lived in the country, about two miles from the saloon, and that the appellant was in charge of the saloon for the greater part of the time; that the homicide took place on a Sunday evening, a little after 8 o'clock; that, late in the afternoon of that day, the appellant was in the saloon, and said to one of the patrons that he and the deceased were having trouble about the business, that he believed Lockard was swindling him, “trying to beat him, and he was going to have a settlement with him the next morning, and he said, if he didn't settle with him square, he'd kill him”; that, at the time this conversation took place, the appellant had in his pocket a revolver which he had borrowed from his cousin, and with which he shot Lockard afterwards that evening; that, a little later in the day, being about 5 o'clock, Lockard, having come in from his farm, was in the saloon with appellant, and there was then some dispute between them, the result of which was that Lockard took the key from appellant, and put him out of the saloon, and locked the door, after which Lockard got into his buggy and returned home; that later in the evening, about 8 o'clock, and just before the people came out from evening services in a neighboring church, the appellant and some frequenters of the saloon were sitting on beer barrels in the rear of the saloon eating oysters, when a shot from a revolver was fired through a broken glass in the window just over appellant's head; that immediately all the party ran away, except appellant, who went around towards the front of the saloon; that a second shot was fired within the saloon, and near to or from the front of the building; that it was a clear, moonlight evening; that appellant stood at the side of the building, his body concealed by the side wall, but his head extended out, watching the front door; that, as soon as the door opened, and the body of the man within appeared, appellant, from his place at the corner, fired upon him; that the man in the door, who proved to be Lockard, fell wounded upon the sidewalk; that he died from the wound on the Wednesday after; that appellant, after shooting Lockard, went home, and then went to the county seat, where he gave himself up to the sheriff, surrendering his revolver, and saying that he had shot Lockard.

It...