State v. Postal

• Decision Date: 16 October 1891
• Parties: STATE v. POSTAL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

83 Iowa 460

50 N.W. 207

STATE

v.POSTAL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 16, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Cherokee county; C. H. LEWIS, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for an assault to commit murder, and was convicted of an assault with intent to commit manslaughter, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for six months. He now appeals to this court.J. D. F. Smith, for appellant.

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

BECK, C. J.

1. Counsel for the defendant first insists that the verdict is without the support of the evidence, and that on this ground it ought to be reversed. We are of the contrary opinion. The evidence quite satisfactorily shows these, among other, points: One Mooney, who is sometimes designated in the abstract as “Dr. Mooney,” induced defendant and two others to accompany him to Cherokee, and render him assistance in securing the custody of his wife, and in taking her with them to the house of one of the other parties. The wife was at the home of her parents, and Mooney represented that she was willing to live with him, but was prevented from doing so by her parents. The plan agreed to be followed by the parties was the forcible abduction of the wife in the night-time. It was expected she would be found at church, from whence she was to be taken in a vehicle with her husband and his friends to the house of one of the parties at some distance from Cherokee. On their way to Cherokee the party prepared themselves for their adventure by cutting bludgeons or clubs, which they took with them in the vehicle, and by drinking whisky from a bottle which they had with them. They reached Cherokee after dark, and, finding the wife was not at the meeting where they expected to find her, they proceeded to the house of her parents, and, discovering that she was with them, Mooney and defendant proceeded to enter, the door being opened in response to a knock for admission. Immediately a contest arose between them and the wife's parents, in which blows were given and received by each party. It is needless to inquire further into the beginning or character of the conflict. The witnesses of the parties do not agree upon the particulars. It is sufficient for our purpose to know that it was brought about by the lawless violence planned and executed by Mooney and his friends. In the conflict a revolver, which Mooney had handed to defendant just before they entered the house, was discharged, inflicting an inconsiderable wound upon the knee of Lusk, the wife's father. Defendant claims that the revolver was discharged by accident while in his hand. His evidence on this point has no support of other witnesses or of circumstances. The fact is he had the revolver in his hand during the fight, and it was discharged while he held it. His claim that the discharge was the result of accident, or was caused by blows with a wash-board inflicted by the father upon him, some of them striking his hand, is utterly unreasonable. It will not do to excuse a pistol shot during a fight, when the weapon is in the hand of one of the parties, on the ground of accident. Men in fights with pistols in their hands usually discharge them intentionally, and not accidentally. The...