State v. Bradley

• Citation: 90 Mo. 160
• Parties: STATE v. BRADLEY.
• Decision Date: 06 December 1886
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

90 Mo. 160

STATE

v.BRADLEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

December 6, 1886.

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county.

Indictment for assault.

The Attorney General, for the State. J. M. Patterson, for appellant.

NORTON, J.

Defendant was indicted in the Greene county circuit court at its November term, 1883, and charged with assaulting and cutting one Petty with a knife. He was arraigned at the May term, 1884, of said court, and put upon his trial, and convicted, and a fine of $100 assessed as his punishment. When the case was called for trial defendant presented the following application for continuance, which was overruled, and the trial ordered to be proceeded with.

The application for continuance is in these words: “Thomas Bradley, being sworn, states that he cannot safely go to trial at this term of court for the want of material testimony that is absent without his connivance, consent, or approval, and that this application is not made for vexation or delay, but for the purposes of justice; and that, if a continuance be granted him, he can, as he verily believes, procure said testimony by the next term of this court. The name of the absent witness is Walter Billings, who has, up to within two months, lived in Greene county near this affiant. At that time he moved into the city of Springfield, and affiant has been under the impression all the time that he still lived in said city. Affiant caused a subpoena to be issued for him a few days ago, and placed same in the hands of the sheriff of Greene county, and hourly believed that the sheriff would find and serve him immediately with said subpoena, but on yesterday evening affiant was informed by the sheriff that he could not find said Walter Billings; that if the said witness was here he would testify as follows: 'My name is Walter Billings. I know Arch Petty and the defendant. That on or about the eighth of September, 1883, I was present at the barn of defendant when defendant and said Petty had a difficulty. I was standing near them. They came walking through the barn. The defendant was whittling with his knife on a small stick. When they got near the front part of the barn, I learned, from their conversation, that they were quarreling about a bill,--Petty claiming that defendant owed him $5 for removing a dead horse; defendant claiming that the contract price was $2.50. Petty got very angry, and finally caught hold of defendant, and threw him around against the side of the barn, and held him there with his left hand, which was on defendant's coat collar, or hold of his throat, and with his right hand he reached back to his hip-pocket, as though he was reaching for a pistol. Defendant had told Petty to let him go, and defendant then, with his knife that was still...