State v. Adams
| Decision Date | 06 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 3752.,3752. |
| Citation | 269 S.W. 401 |
| Parties | STATE v. ADAMS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, New Madrid County; H. C. Riley, Judge.
Louis Adams was convicted for common assault, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Gallivan & Finch, of New Madrid, and McKay & Peal, of Caruthersville, for appellant.
J. N. Massengill, Pros. Atty., of New Madrid. and Ward, Reeves & Oliver, of Caruthersville, for the State.
Defendant was charged by information with felonious assault under section 3262, R. S. 1919. The trial resulted in a conviction for common assault, and defendant's punishment was fixed by the jury at a fine of $100 and imprisonment in the county jail for six months, the maximum punishment prescribed for common assault. Failing to get a new trial defendant appealed.
The information charges that defendant on June 3, 1923, in New Madrid county, "in and upon one William Reed, feloniously, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and with a deadly weapon, to wit, a black jack, made of leather and metal, and about an inch and one-half in diameter, of weight of about two pounds, him, the said William Reed, did then and there feloniously, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, strike, beat, and wound, with intent then and there him the said William Reed, feloniously, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, to kill and murder," etc.
The trouble which gave rise to this cause occurred in the city of Portageville about 5 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon. Defendant was city marshal and Reed was a comparative stranger in the town, having been in Portageville only about 10 days, and he and defendant were unacquainted. Defendant and W. H. Laster were sitting on a bench in front of a tailor shop when Reed came up and sat down between them. Thus far the evidence of both sides agrees. The state's evidence tends to show that shortly after Reed sat down some one of the three mentioned the Ku Klux Klan, and defendant by his expression indicated that he was against the Klan; that Reed remarked that he knew nothing about the Klan, but from what he had heard and from a card he had seen it must not be so bad, and that in his opinion some of the things attributed to the Klan were not true, and that some other organization was probably responsible for some of the conduct attributed to the Klan; that thereupon defendant began a tirade against Reed, called him a liar and other most opprobrious epithets and struck at Reed once or twice and knocked his hat off; that Reed immediately moved away and went up the street to a bench in front of a restaurant; that defendant went up the street to the bench and struck at Reed again; and that Reed again moved up the street and sat down in front of a drug store, and after sitting there for a few minutes went into the drug store to get a soft drink, and that, while he had the glass to his mouth drinking, defendant entered the drug store and said, "You are the man I am looking for," and struck Reed on the left cheek with a billy, and drew his pistol and threatened to kill him.
Defendant's evidence tends to show that Reed came up to the bench where defendant and Laster were sitting and sat down between them, and commenced a conversation about the Klan; that Laster remarked that he had nothing against the Klan and nothing for them, that in some places they were killing people, and that Reed said that it was not the Klan doing it, and remarked that there was another organization more detrimental to the government of the United States than the Klan, and that defendant, because Reed seemed to be talking to him, asked Reed what organization he was referring to, and that Reed said the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus; that thereupon defendant called Reed a liar, and struck at him, but did not touch him; that Reed then went away, and defendant went up the street to the city hall, got in his car, and went home; stayed at his home 20 or 30 minutes and returned, and without knowing that Reed was in the drug store, and not looking for Reed, walked into the drug store, and that when he saw Reed he struck him a glancing blow on the left cheek with his fist; that he did not strike Reed with the billy nor attempt to do so. Defendant said that he had his pistol, but did not remember whether he pulled it out of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Minneapolis-Moline Power Implement Co. v. Wright
... ... Waters et al. v. Gallemore et al., ... 4 S.W.2d 870, 872; LeClaire v. LeClaire et al., 77 ... S.W.2d 862, 864; Hart v. Missouri State Life Insurance ... Co., 79 S.W.2d 793, 794. (2) Demurrer to the Evidence ... The court properly overruled the demurrer to the evidence on ... ...
-
The State v. Pigg
... ... Schneider, 259 Mo. 319; ... State v. Webb, 254 Mo. 414; State v ... Bobbst, 131 Mo. 328; State v. Clancy, 225 Mo ... 659; State v. Dozier, 177 S.W. 359; State v ... Davis, 217 S.W. 91; State v. Goodwin, 217 S.W ... 264; State v. Fischer, 124 Mo. 460; State v ... Adams, 269 S.W. 401. (4) The court erred in refusing to ... give defendant's demurrer to the evidence on the first ... count of the information at the close of the State's ... case, and again at the close of all the evidence in the case ... See cases cited, under Point 1. (5) The court erred in ... ...
-
State v. Davit
...State v. Young, 12 S.W. 879; State v. Clapper, 102 S.W. 560; State v. Upton, 109 S.W. 821; State v. Richter, 36 S.W.2d 954; State v. Adams, 269 S.W. 401. (4) court erred in permitting counsel for the State to cross-examine the defendant on matters and things and circumstances beyond the sco......
-
Power Implement Co. v. Wright
... ... Waters et al. v. Gallemore et al., 4 S.W. (2d) 870, 872; LeClaire v. LeClaire et al., 77 S.W. (2d) 862, 864; Hart v. Missouri State Life Insurance Co., 79 S.W. (2d) 793, 794. (2) Demurrer to the Evidence. The court properly overruled the demurrer to the evidence on respondent's ... ...