Rutland v. Com.

• Decision Date: 06 October 1914
• Citation: 169 S.W. 584,160 Ky. 77
• Parties: RUTLAND v. COMMONWEALTH. [d1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

169 S.W. 584

160 Ky. 77

RUTLAND v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[d1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 6, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County.

A. V Rutland was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.

James Breathitt and Breathitt, Allensworth & Breathitt, all of Hopkinsville, for appellant.

James Garnett, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

HANNAH J.

A. V Rutland was convicted in the Christian circuit court of the common law of offense of conspiring to cause another to be falsely accused of a crime for the purpose of extorting money. The jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at a fine of $358, and from the judgment entered upon the verdict he appeals.

It appears from the evidence that appellant, Rutland, lives at Empire in Christian county, where he is engaged in the business of operating a coal mine. One Robert Fields was employed by appellant in his store. Callie Fields, wife of Robert Fields, was about 16 years of age at the time of the incidents herein mentioned.

Callie Fields testified that some time before Christmas, 1913, she was in appellant's store, and that appellant called her into that part of the building which was used as an office and there tried to induce her to accuse Dr. S. H. Williams of making improper proposals to her, promising her a suit and a hat if she would do so, and also saying that if she would make this accusation, he would make some "easy money" for her and her husband. She testified that she declined to be a party to such a proceeding, and informed Rutland that Dr. Williams had not been guilty of any misconduct toward her. She further testified that some time thereafter her husband took her to Madisonville to the office of an attorney, and that arrangements were there made to file a suit against Dr. Williams; but the witness denies that she fully understood the exact nature of the proposed action.

A Mrs. Butler testified that she was in appellant's store and saw Callie Fields when appellant called her into his office; that she heard appellant ask Callie Fields to swear something, and heard him promise her if she would swear it, he would make her and her husband some money; and that she heard Callie Fields reply, "I cannot, for he did not."

Dr. Williams lived at Crofton near Empire, as did also the mother of Callie Fields, and the latter had visited her mother from time to time and received medical treatment from Dr. Lovan, another physician at Crofton. She had also on one occasion gotten some medicine from Dr. Williams.

Dr. Williams testified that after dark on November 10, 1913, appellant called him over the telephone and urged his immediate presence at Empire upon a matter of importance; that he went to Empire that night, taking Dr. Lovan with him. The latter lived just across the street from Dr. Williams, and they were close friends. When Williams and Lovan arrived at appellant's house, Lovan remained in the buggy while Williams went in. Appellant took Williams to his bedroom and informed him that Robert Fields was asserting that he, Williams, had made improper proposals to his wife, and that he was going to bring suit against Williams for damages. After some talk, Williams suggested that appellant send for Fields and his wife, who lived about 100 yards distant, so that he might talk with them, but appellant declined to do this. He suggested indirectly, however, that the matter might be compromised, saying that he himself had once had a case in which the parties wanted $1,200 and he had settled it for $375. Williams declined to accept the proffered suggestion of compromise, and returned home.

Dr. Lovan testified that he had been at Empire that same afternoon, and appellant had told him that Fields was going to sue Williams for the alienation of his wife's affection, but that he believed it could be settled for $500. He also testified that he went with Dr. Williams that night to appellant's house, and that after they returned to Crofton, appellant called him over the telephone and told him Fields had learned that they had been to see appellant, and that he was very angry, and, seemingly by indirection, advising that the matter be promptly settled.

Dr. Williams, however, declined to make any proffers of settlement; and on November 28, 1913, an action was instituted in the Christian circuit court, by Robert Fields as next friend of Callie Fields, against Dr. Williams, for $5,000, damages for assault.

Appellant admits that he telephoned to an attorney, who lived some 30 miles distant, to come to his place on the day he was employed by Fields to bring this suit, but says that the reason he sent for the attorney was that he wanted to place in his hands for collection accounts against three coal miners, who had been working for him but had left, owing him. In the light of the other facts shown, it is significant that Fields knew this attorney was coming to Empire, and when the attorney got off the train, Fields, after making inquiry as to the identity of the attorney, introduced himself, and said he wanted to talk with him about a matter before he left Empire.

In answer to questions asked by counsel for defendant, Dr Williams testified that on November 14, 1913, Callie Fields, while at the home of her mother in Crofton, had made an affidavit acquitting him of any charge of improper conduct toward her, and stating that appellant, Rutland, had tried to induce her to make a charge of that character against him. From a second affidavit by Callie Fields, introduced by defendant, it seems that the existence of the affidavit of November 14, 1913, became known to appellant and Robert Fields after the institution of the suit against Dr. Williams, and Fields then took his wife to the office of the attorney who had brought the suit for him, taking a note from appellant to this attorney, the contents of which is unknown. The attorney testified that he read the note and threw it in the waste-paper basket, and that he had no recollection of its contents. Callie Fields then made another affidavit, this time asserting that her former affidavit made at her mother's was procured by overpersuasion, and reaffirming the charges made against Dr. Williams in the petition filed against him by her husband as her next friend. This was on ...