Ralls County v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 19 January 1904
• Citation: 78 S.W. 291,104 Mo. App. 115
• Parties: RALLS COUNTY v. STEPHENS et al.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

78 S.W. 291

104 Mo. App. 115

RALLS COUNTY v. STEPHENS et al.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

January 19, 1904.

REWARDS—PERSON ENTITLED.

1. S., knowing of a murder, and of a reward for the apprehension, arrest, and conviction of the murderer, and becoming suspicious that J. was guilty, took steps to locate him, and, having done so, telegraphed C., a sheriff, to arrest him, which he did, without knowing of what he was suspected; C. then telegraphing the fact to S., at S.'s expense, receiving a fee for the arrest, and turning J. over to S. who elicited a confession from him, on which he was convicted. Held, that S., as against C., was entitled to the reward.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ralls County; D. H. Eby, Judge.

Ralls county interpleaded John W. Stephens, George T. Carter, and another, to determine their rights to a reward. From a judgment for Stephens, Carter and another appeal. Affirmed.

Roy & Hays and David Wallace, for appellants. J. W. Hays, for respondent county. W. T. Ragland and J. O. Allison, for respondent Stephens.

GOODE, J.

These parties are in litigation over an award offered by Ralls county for the murderer of one of its citizens, Marcus D. McRae, who was slain and robbed on April 28, 1902. The cause was tried on an agreed statement of the facts, but, as the recitals of that statement are more elaborate than we care to copy in full, we will extract from it the important facts on which we rest our decision: Stephens was deputy sheriff of Monroe county at the time stated, and resided in Monroe City, a short distance from the scene of the murder, which was in the northwest corner of Ralls county. On May 1st, three days after the murder, William Testerman, who resided at Withers Mill, notified Stephens that a negro had gotten on a west-bound freight train at Withers Mill the morning following the day McRae was killed. This information aroused a suspicion in the mind of Stephens that the negro referred to by Testerman was Jesse Johnson, whom he (Stephens) knew. He interviewed the conductor of the freight train on which the negro had traveled, and, from the description given by the conductor, became convinced that Johnson was the man. He also learned from the conductor that Johnson left the train at Brookfield. Stephens knew of the reward that had been offered by Ralls county, and, in order to apprehend Johnson, telephoned to the marshal at Brookfield a description of him, asked if such a man had been at Brookfield, and received a reply that he had been there, but had left for Milan in Sullivan county. Thereupon Stephens telegraphed the marshal of Milan to arrest Johnson, giving a description of him. The appellant George T. Carter was the marshal of Milan, and in obedience to Stephens' telegram he made the arrest; notifying Stephens that he had done so by a telegram, the charge for which the latter paid. Carter also received a fee of $1 for the arrest. When he made it, he did not know what Johnson was wanted for, nor that a reward had been offered for the murderer of McRae. While Stephens was on the train on his way to Brookfield, he received Carter's message that Johnson had been taken. Carter's message that Johnson over to Denbro, a secret service man in the employ of the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railway, who was in Milan on the day of the capture, to be taken to Brookfield and delivered to Stephens, as was done. Stephens in due time surrendered him to the sheriff of Ralls county, but, while Johnson was still in his custody, Stephens elicited from him a confession of the murder of McRae, which was instrumental in securing his conviction. The reward offered by the county court was "for the apprehension, arrest, and conviction" of the person guilty of McRae's murder. Testerman, Carter, and Stephens all claimed the reward; but Testerman did not appeal from the decision of the court below, which was in Stephens' favor. Carter appealed, and contends that, on the agreed facts, he was entitled to the reward, inasmuch as he made the arrest.

Who earned the reward? is the question: and, on reading the above recital of the material facts of the controversy, one perceives that the meritorious claim is that of the respondent Stephens. He, alone of the parties, when he learned of the murder and the reward for its perpetrator, became active and enterprising in endeavoring to effect a capture. He took prompt and energetic measures, spent time and money, made a journey, sent telegrams, and did what he could to bring the criminal within the grasp of the law. Testerman, it is true, furnished a little news, which started the activity of Stephens; but Testerman's claim has no force, because he did not comply with the conditions of the offer of the reward. Shuey v. U. S., 92 U. S. 73, 23 L. Ed. 697; Everman v. Hyman, 3 Ind....