Schlect v. State
| Decision Date | 07 January 1890 |
| Parties | SCHLECT v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Marathon county.Brown & Pradt, ( George W. Cate and Silverthorn, Hurley, Ryan & Jones, of counsel,) for plaintiff in error.
C. E. Estabrook, Atty. Gen., and L. K. Luse, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The plaintiff in error was tried upon an information for murder in the first degree, and convicted of manslaughter in the fourth degree. The only point made for a reversal of the judgment is that the evidence did not warrant the jury in finding the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the fourth degree. The facts are substantially as follows: The defendant was the keeper of a saloon in the city of Wausau, in this state, in connection with his hotel. The saloon or bar was connected with another room by an arch way; and, in the afternoon of Christmas day of the year 1887, he had been sitting, with several friends, at a table in said room. The deceased and several boon companions hired a team, and made the rounds of the saloons in the city, picking up others as they drove along. They stopped and drank at each saloon that bought beer of Louis Ruder, one of the company, who was a brewer, and who had an ill feeling towards the defendant because he did not buy his beer of him; and Louis Butler, the deceased, had quarreled with the defendant on account of some garnishee suit, and had threatened to get even with the defendant, applying to him an opprobrious epithet. Williams, another of that company, was unfriendly with the defendant. The company grew noisy and turbulent as they went the rounds of the city, and at one place drove on the sidewalk, and were cautioned by the police. They drove from that place directly to the hotel of the defendant. Williams was delegated to go in, and call the defendant to come out and see the crowd. He came, and looked out of the door, and then shut the door, and went back into said room. Williams made some remark, and the defendant said, “That will do,” or “That's enough.” The crowd seemed offended at their reception, and talked of it as they drove away. They then put up their team, and agreed that they would go to the defendant's saloon, and call him to an account for not giving them liquor, or for his treatment of them when they called before. They all went into the hotel by the bar-room door. The defendant went into his bar, and asked them what they wanted. They made no reply, only Williams applied to the defendant some opprobrious epithet, and so did the deceased. The defendant then started for the deceased, and they clinched; and the deceased got his arm around the neck of the defendant, or “got his head in chancery,” as sportsmen say, and beat him in the face, or on the head, with the fist of his other hand. In the struggle they got into the room adjoining the bar-room, by the deceased pushing the defendant, or the defendant pulling the deceased, in trying to get away. While struggling in this position a short time, the defendant pulled out his revolver from his breast pocket, held it close to the deceased, as he had to, and fired the fatal shot. The defendant had no enmity against any of the crowd, and he claimed that when he shot he was strangled, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Talmage
-
Johnson v. State
...definition of several statutory homicidal offenses. Probably counsel was justified in that view by what was said in Schlect v. State, 75 Wis. 486, 44 N. W. 509. The circumstances in the case referred to were that when the accused and the deceased were clinched and in an angry struggle, the ......
-
Beauregard v. State
...Keenan v. State, 8 Wis. *132, and the general trend of authority on the subject and correcting the mistake made in Schlect v. State, 75 Wis. 486, 44 N. W. 509, will be found illustrated by numerous cases decided in other jurisdictions, of which the following are but a few: Smith v. State, 7......
-
Matter of Szegedi
...have been an intent actually to cause a death or the offense would be raised from manslaughter in the fourth degree. Schlect v. State, 75 Wis. 486, 44 N.W. 509 (1890), concerned a killing by defendant during a fight in a saloon. The court held that defendant might have been convicted of man......