State v. Nettles

• Decision Date: 23 January 1900
• Citation: 153 Mo. 464,55 S.W. 70
• Parties: STATE v. NETTLES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

55 S.W. 70

153 Mo. 464

STATE v. NETTLES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 23, 1900.

HOMICIDE — APPEAL — NEW TRIAL — NEWLY-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE — WITNESSES — INDICTMENT.

1. A verdict on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal, when fully warranted.

2. A new trial will not be granted on grounds of newly-discovered evidence without the affidavits of the witnesses who are expected to furnish the new evidence, unless their absence is satisfactorily explained.

3. Under Rev. St. 1889, § 4097, providing that the names of all material witnesses shall be indorsed on the back of the indictment, and that other witnesses may be called, but no continuance shall be granted to the state for absence of any except those whose names so appear, it is not ground for new trial that witnesses were introduced whose names were not on the indictment.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court, John A. Talty, Judge.

James Nettles was convicted of murder, and from the judgment he appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. J. Maurer and John L. Van Patton, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURGESS, J.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at death, for having shot and killed with a pistol one Samuel W. Mann. He appeals.

Defendant is a negro, and had lived in St. Louis about two years at the time of the homicide. The deceased lived with his family at No. 4862 Old Manchester Road, and was engaged as conductor on a suburban street-car line in said city. About 6 o'clock in the evening of July 4, 1898, he left Meramec Highlands, at which place his wife and two children boarded a car for the city, of which he was in charge as conductor. He went into the city as far as Sixth and Locust streets, which is the terminus of the line upon which he was engaged, where he remained until the regular time for him to go west. Mrs. Mann, the deceased's wife, occupied the second seat from the rear door, on the left-hand side, going west. The evidence is not clear as to when the defendant got on the car. Some time before they reached Twenty-Eighth street, he was observed by Mrs. Mann, who testified that her attention was directed to him by his working with a broken seat on the car; that he was trying to make the back of the seat set up, but, on account of its being broken, it would not set in its place. The defendant occupied the seat directly opposite, and across the aisle from, Mrs. Mann. The deceased told the defendant to let the seat alone, that it was broken, and that there were others unoccupied. The defendant got up and went to another seat, which he occupied but a few minutes, when he arose, and drew a revolver from his pocket and flourished it two or three times in the air. There were at the time 10 or 12 passengers aboard. The deceased told the defendant that he would either have to put his revolver in his pocket and behave himself, or else leave the car. To this the defendant replied that he did not know whether he would or not. Deceased said he could not carry on in the car that way. Defendant then told deceased to give him back his fare. Deceased said the fare was "rung up," and he could not give it back, whereupon the defendant stepped towards the door in which the deceased stood, and said, "Give me my fare." The deceased then gave him his fare and told him to get off; at the time stopping the car, and motioning the motorman to come and assist him. The car was stopped, and the motorman came back and assisted the conductor in putting the defendant off. They took hold of him and led him out of the car, off of the platform, and onto the street. The car was stopped at the corner of Twenty-Eighth street and Franklin avenue. As soon as they had put the defendant off the car, he raised his revolver and fired. The deceased and the motorman started after him. They went but a few steps, and stopped. As they turned to go back to the car, the defendant again raised his revolver, and fired twice. On reaching the steps at the rear end of the car, deceased remarked to the motorman that he had been shot twice. One of the balls had taken effect just below the heart and lungs, severing two or three arteries. The other ball took effect in his right wrist. The deceased was taken from the street car to the Baptist Sanitarium, a short distance away, where he was kept until the following morning, when he died. The defendant ran down the alley towards Linden street, where he boarded at 1326. The evidence as to the identity of the defendant is clear and convincing. A number of witnesses who were on the car at the time testified as to his committing the act. The only defense set up is that of an alibi. Defendant claims to have left his boarding house in the middle of the afternoon of July 4th, and gone with his landlord, Mitchell White, to Kirkwood, where they attended a picnic, returning about 7 o'clock in the evening. From that time on until midnight he...