State v. Headrick

• Decision Date: 09 May 1899
• Citation: 149 Mo. 396,51 S.W. 99
• Parties: STATE v. HEADRICK.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 S.W. 99

149 Mo. 396

STATE v. HEADRICK.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 9, 1899.

CRIMINAL LAW — CHANGE OF VENUE — HARMLESS ERROR — HOMICIDE — INSTRUCTIONS — EVIDENCE — WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY.

1. Under Laws 1895, p. 162, requiring that the petition on an application for change of venue shall be supported by affidavits of at least two citizens, an application based on the affidavit of defendant, and an offer to support it by oral testimony, is insufficient.

2. Error in overruling an application for change of venue on the ground that the moving affidavits were insufficient is harmless, where on the following day defendant renewed his motion on the requisite affidavits, and was heard.

3. That there was considerable feeling against defendant at the time of the homicide, and some talk of mobbing him, and the sheriff removed him to another county for safe-keeping, is not sufficient ground for change of venue, where it appeared that the feeling was confined entirely to the locality in which the crime was committed, and was such only as is found among relatives and friends of deceased.

4. Error in refusing an instruction asked by a defendant on trial for homicide is not reviewable, where it was not assigned as error in the motion for a new trial.

5. It is not error for the court to refuse an instruction on self-defense asked by defendant, where it had already given a sufficient instruction covering that defense.

6. Defendant, who had been in the employ of deceased, was discharged by him less than a month before the homicide. On the day of settlement between them, defendant exhibited a revolver, and stated that the next thing he would do they would all remember the balance of their lives. The wife and daughter of deceased testified that, on the morning of the homicide, deceased accompanied them from the place where they had been milking as far as the barn, which he entered, and they went on towards a spring; that they saw defendant walking across the barn lot, and, shortly after, heard a shot; that they saw deceased running from the barn, pursued by defendant, who was firing at him; that deceased fell, and defendant stopped at his feet, and reloaded his revolver, shot deceased's wife, pursued her, and stabbed her in the arm and throat. Defendant admitted killing deceased and continuing to shoot him after he was dead, but claimed that he had gone back to the premises at the request of the daughter, and had met her secretly, and had been in hiding in the barn; that, while attempting to go back into the barn, he was discovered by deceased, who began to abuse him, and tried to assault him, and called to his wife to bring his gun; that, being apprehensive for his life, he shot deceased. Held sufficient to justify a conviction of murder in the first degree.

Appeal from circuit court, Cape Girardeau county; Henry C. Riley, Judge.

John Headrick was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Ed. W. Hays and L. Caruthers, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and T. D. Hines, Pros. Atty., for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of murder in the first degree at the adjourned August term, 1898, of the circuit court of Cape Girardeau county. After unsuccessful motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, he appeals to this court.

The evidence shows that the defendant had worked as a farm hand for the deceased, James Lail. Some time in June, 1898, the defendant was arrested for taking a horse and buggy belonging to some one (the record does not disclose who), and appropriating it to his own use, and injuring the same, and was convicted of the misdemeanor, it seems. He was arrested at the house of Lail, and taken away; and, after he was at liberty again, he returned to Lail's house. He found that Lail had employed one Brodarlick in his place, and, when he wanted to go to work again, Lail stated to him that he had hired Brodarlick, and could not give him (Headrick) employment. Thereupon Lail and defendant settled up. The defendant had $2.10 coming to him, and deceased paid him $1.10; and defendant directed deceased to leave the other dollar, any time he wished, at John Woods', in Jackson, Mo. Defendant then got his clothes and left. Albert Summers and Miss Jessie Lail were present when the settlement was made. Summers testified that he knew Headrick, and that he had seen him with a pistol (38 caliber), and that on the day of the settlement, at the back door of the house of Lail, defendant exhibited the pistol to witness Summers, but made no threats to kill any one; but after he settled with Lail, and Mr. Lail had gone away, in the presence of Miss Jessie Lail and Summers (witness stated) the defendant said the next thing he would do they would all remember the balance of their lives, or words to that effect. Defendant and witness Summers then left together, and walked away from the Lail homestead; and witness Summers testified that defendant said he was going to take morphine and kill himself, if he did not get work soon, and exhibited a bottle labeled "Morphine" to witness. It seems defendant was raised about three miles from the Lail homestead, and that he had been living with his mother and stepfather, and that he had formed an attachment for Miss Lail, and that he talked to various persons about Kirksey and Miss Jessie Lail being sweethearts, and wanted at least two different young men of the neighborhood to assist him in breaking up the relation of lovers between Miss Lail and Kirksey, but each of the young men declined to do so. The evidence showed that defendant was loafing around the town of Jackson, two and a half or three miles from the Lail homestead, and about three-quarters of a mile or a mile from where defendant lived, most of the time from the day he and Summers were at Lail's, up to the time of the killing. The evidence was conflicting as to whether or not Miss Jessie Lail met and conversed with the defendant on the streets of Jackson just prior to the killing. She denied it, and the defendant asserted that she did, while disinterested persons who saw them on the street about the same time said that Miss Jessie was with another girl, and got in the buggy, and was preparing to drive away, when John Headrick, the defendant, simply walked up to the buggy, spoke to the girls, and they drove off. Before the tragedy, defendant went to a physician in Jackson, and sought medical attention for a disease he had contracted, and asked if some one else (not naming the person) could also use the medicine he procured. On the morning of July 1, 1898, about 6 o'clock, according to the testimony of Mrs. Lail and Miss Jessie Lail, these two ladies were near their barn, at the Lail homestead,...