State v. Elvins

Decision Date30 June 1890
Citation101 Mo. 243,13 S.W. 937
PartiesSTATE v. ELVINS.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, St. Francois county; JAMES D. FOX, Judge.

Indictment under section 1262, Rev. St. 1879, omitting formal parts, as follows: "That Ralph Elvins, on the ___ day of March, 1886, at and in the county of St. Francois and state of Missouri, in and upon one Barney Flynn, feloniously, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and did then and there, on purpose, and of his malice aforethought, feloniously shoot at him, the said Barney Flynn, with a certain Winchester rifle loaded with powder and leaden balls, which he, the said Ralph Elvins, then and there held in both his hands, with intent then and there the said Barney Flynn, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, feloniously to kill and murder, against the peace and dignity of the state. MERRILL PIPKIN, Prosecuting Attorney." The testimony shows that about 11 o'clock on the night of the 13th of March, 1886, defendant became engaged in a difficulty in Barney Flynn's saloon, in St. Francois county, Mo., with a man by the name of Edwards, and also attempted to raise a disturbance with some other parties, who were in the saloon playing cards at the time. Flynn, the saloon-keeper, in trying to keep him quiet, became engaged in an altercation with him, and finally put him out of the saloon, and closed the door. After he was put outside, Seward Burke, one of the witnesses, tried to get him to go home, but he insisted on going up town. In speaking to him about the trouble he had had, Burke said to him, "He might have killed you, and you might have killed him;" and then defendant said, "If that is the case, I will go down home, and get my Winchester." He then went home, got his Winchester rifle, came back to the saloon, pushed open the door, and, putting his gun in at the opening, shot at Barney Flynn once or twice. Flynn had been told by Burke that defendant had gone to get his Winchester; and, when he returned, he had his gun ready to defend himself, and both shot at about the same time. The trial resulted in the defendant being found guilty, and his punishment assessed at three years' imprisonment in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • State v. Stogsdill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1929
    ...in 1922 by the railroad to protect non-union men was irrelevant, too remote and on a collateral issue, and was properly excluded. State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243; Stole v. Heath, 141 S.W. 26. (10) Defendant's witness Stokely was properly cross-examined as to his former testimony, for the purpo......
  • Baker v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 24, 1894
    ...to instructions unless such party shows by the record that exceptions were taken at the time the instructions were given. State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243, 13 S. W. 937; Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367; Dozier v. Jerman, 30 Mo. 216, — and other cases. Defendant would hardly except to the giving of ......
  • Baker v. The Kansas City, fort Scott & Memphis v. Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 4, 1894
    ...... not assigned as error in the motion for a new trial. Cowen v. Railroad, 48 Mo. 556; Gaines v. Frender, 82 Mo. 497; State v. Grimes, 101 Mo. 188; Haynes v. Trenton, 108 Mo. 123. (13) Indeed,. objections to instructions can not for the first time be. taken on a ... otherwise they will not be entertained by the supreme court. Powers v. Allen, 14 Mo. 367; Dozier v. Jerman, 30 Mo. 216; State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243. Appellant could not have objected, at the time, to an. instruction it asked itself; neither is it one of the grounds. for which it ......
  • State v. Stogsdill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 11, 1929
    ...... party to the conspiracy but that he actually fired the fatal. shot. (9) The excluded testimony relating to defendant's. employment in 1922 by the railroad to protect non-union men. was irrelevant, too remote and on a collateral issue, and was. properly excluded. State v. Elvins, 101 Mo. 243;. Stole v. Heath, 141 S.W. 26. (10) Defendant's. witness Stokely was properly cross-examined as to his former. testimony, for the purpose of impeachment and appellant's. complaint is without merit. Contradictory testimony given by. a witness is admissible for the purpose of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT