Ritter v. People

• Decision Date: 31 October 1889
• Citation: 22 N.E. 605,130 Ill. 255
• Parties: RITTER v. PEOPLE.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

130 Ill. 255

22 N.E. 605

RITTER

v.PEOPLE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 31, 1889.

Error to circuit court, McLean county; OWEN T. REEVES, Judge.

SHOPE, C. J., dissenting.

Kerrick, Lucas & Spencer, for plaintiff in error.

E. H. Miner, State's Atty., and E. O'Connell, Asst. State's Atty., for the People.

WILKIN, J.

At the November term, 1885, of the circuit court of McLean county plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of manslaughter, for killing one Jeff. Adkins, and sentenced to the penitentiary for the term of five years. From that judgment he prosecutes this writ of error. Without going into a general review of the evidence, the following facts are accepted as being established upon the trial. The defendant was a farmer, residing on a farm in McLean county at the time of the killing. Deceased had been employed by him as a farm hand, for one month, his time expiring about noon on the 3d of August, 1888. On a settlement that day a dispute arose between the parties as to whether or not $10 of the wages due Adkins should be paid to a neighbor of defendant, to whom Adkins owed that amount. Angry words ensued, and finally Adkins assaulted defendant, striking him several violent blows in the face, defendant making no resistance. Bystanders interposed, and with difficulty took Adkins off defendant. Just before he struck defendant, Adkins displayed a knife, but did not attempt to use it, and when defendant called attention to it put it in his pocket, saying he could whip him without it. Immediately after they were separated, defendant ordered Adkins to leave the place, but this he refused to do, saying he would not go until he had whipped him, or ‘given him a good licking.’ Defendant then went to his house, a distance of some 50 feet, and got a breech-loading shotgun. While in the house he was heard to say with an oath, ‘Let me go.’ His wife called out about the same time, telling Adkins to leave the place, that her husband had a gun. During the time defendant was in the house Adkins got two brickbats, each about the size of a half brick. As defendant came out with the gun he ordered Adkins, several times, to leave his place, at the same time advancing towards him. Adkins replied once, or, perhaps, oftener, ‘D___ n you, you have got your gun. I am not afraid of it.’ A Mr. Freed, who was present, and is entirely disinterested, and in no manner discredited, testifies as follows: ‘Then Ritter said the third time, ‘Now, Adkins, I want you to go off of my place as quick as you can.’ Adkins said, ‘I won't do it. You have your gun, but you dasn't use it.’ Then Ritter came to a full stop, and Adkins advanced towards him two or three steps.' To the question, ‘I will ask you, if, as he advanced with a brick, he assumed a striking position ready to throw?’ he answered, ‘Yes, sir;’ and he described the attitude of Adkins as one in the act of throwing, and says, ‘Then Ritter shot. The shot struck him in the left side.’ As nearly as can be ascertained from the evidence the parties were some 10 or 12 feet apart when the shot was fired. Adkins died the same day from the effects of the wound. He was a man of great physical strength, and his reputation was shown to be that of a quarrelsome, violent man, and so known to the defendant. He had previously threatened to whip the defendant if he did not settle satisfactorily with him, and on the day of the shooting he told another farm hand on the place if he (Ritter) did not settle right, he would give him a good whipping. This was communicated to the defendant shortly before the attempted settlement. The people introduced evidence tending to show that when defendant went to the house for the gun he made the remark ‘that he would make it hot for him;’ and one witness testified that, after the shooting he said, alluding to deceased, ‘Let him die, the Kentucky s_____ of a b_____.’ This last remark was denied by the defendant.

In the view we take of the case it is not important to determine whether such language was used or not. In the controversy which led to the first act of violence the defendant was not blameless, but he did nothing to justify the assault made upon him by deceased. The defendant testified in his own behalf that he had not used the gun for two months previous to that day, and did not know whether it was loaded or not; that he had at the time no intention of shooting the deceased. He also testified: ‘I thought at the sight of the gun he would go away.’ It does not appear that he said anything about shooting, or that he presented the gun previous to firing the shot. He swears that at the time the shot was fired deceased was in the act of throwing, and that the shot was fired without any deliberation, and in self-defense. On the other hand it is ably argued by counsel for the people that from the position which the parties are shown to have been in when the gun was fired, and the manner in which the shot took effect on the face of deceased, he could not have been in the act of throwing at the defendant when he received the fatal wound, and...