State v. Carroll

• Decision Date: 10 May 1892
• Parties: STATE v. CARROLL ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 Iowa 1

51 N.W. 1159

STATE

v.CARROLL ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 10, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Monona county; GEORGE W. WAKEFIELD, Judge.

The defendants were indicted upon a charge of feloniously, willfully, and maliciously burning a barn, the property of one S. C. King. The cause was tried to a jury, and the defendants were found guilty, and there was a judgment that they be imprisoned in the penitentiary for one year. Defendants appeal.Ed. L. Conlin and Lynn & Sullivan, for appellants.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Thos. A. Cheshire, for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. It appears from the evidence in the case that on the night of the 3d day of November, 1888, the barn of S. C. King was destroyed by fire. The fire was discovered between 11 and 12 o'clock. The flames were all over the barn when it was discovered, and it could not be determined at what part of the building the fire originated or was started. The defendants are two boys, who resided with their parents in the same neighborhood with King. They were at that time aged 15 and 16 years, respectively, and are cousins. They are also nephews of S. C. King by marriage. There is nothing in the whole record to show that the defendants had any motive for setting the barn on fire, and, aside from what is claimed to be an admission of the defendant Thomas Carroll, made to one Sego, there is nothing directly pointing to the defendants as being guilty of burning the barn. This man Sego was a witness on the trial, and he testified that he was employed by King as a detective to bring the guilty parties to justice, and that in pursuance of his employment he went to a lyceum at a schoolhouse in the neighborhood a week after the barn was destroyed, with a supply of whisky, and that he gave the defendant Thomas Carroll some of it, which he drank, and, after having taken several drinks, he told him that the defendant [William] said that he [Thomas] fired the barn, and that Thomas replied that he [[[William] “was a damn liar; that he done it himself.” He then proposed to make an arrangement with one Ordway, by which he (Sego) and the defendant Thomas should burn King's house, and get $50 for burning it. He also testified that at another time he had a conversation with both of the defendants, in which they proposed, if he skipped the country, they would swear he burned the barn. He testified to other facts in connection with his employment as a detective. On cross–examination he was asked by counsel for the defendants how much salary he was to receive for his services as detective. The state objected to the question as incompetent and immaterial. The objection was sustained, and defendants excepted to the ruling. He was further asked, on cross–examination, if he had stated in a certain conversation with one Pierce that his compensation depended upon whether he succeeded in convicting the defendants. An objection to this question was sustained. He was further asked if he had not stated that he was to receive 40 acres of land and $400 if the defendants were convicted.

In our opinion, the court should have overruled these and like objections to other parts of the cross–examination of the witness, and permitted the defendants to impeach him by showing the motives which actuated him in playing the role of detective. He admitted that the statement he made to the defendant Thomas Carroll that William had said he (Thomas) burned the barn was false, and that it was made to entrap Thomas into a confession. It further appeared in the testimony of the said Sego that he did afterwards twice “skip the country,” as he termed it. He stated that he went away once upon payment of $100,...