State v. Vanarsdall
| Decision Date | 05 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 26173 |
| Parties | STATE v. VANARSDALL |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J Allen Prewitt and L. T. Dryden, both of Independence, and John B. Pew and James W. Broaddus, both of Kansas City, for appellant.
Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen. (Will F. Frank, of Kirksville, of counsel), for the State.
The appellant stands charged with murder in the second degree for having killed Frank Fuhr August 3, 1922. The case was tried in the circuit court of Jackson county February 1, 1924, and the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at one year in the county jail. He is 53 years old. At the time of the tragedy he lived with his wife and two sons on his farm in the northeast corner of Jackson county. The deceased was about the same age, a bachelor who lived alone on his farm on the same road and about a quarter of a mile west of the home of the appellant.
Prior to August 3, 1922, there had been at least two altercations between these men. Aside from these, they had all their lives lived as neighbors, been friendly, and exchanged favors with each other. In November, 1921, a male hog of the deceased escaped from the inclosure in which he was kept. Fuhr went to the home of the appellant, looking for his hog. It was found with appellant's hogs. Appellant told Fuhr that he would like to keep the hog for two or three days, to which the deceased consented. He further said he would shut him up in a pen with some of his own hogs. Two or three mornings later appellant went out to feed his stock, and found that the male hog had gotten out during the night. He at once called his son Layton, then about 18 years old, and told him to go up to Fuhr's house and see if the hog had gone home. He went and found the hog, and also discovered that Fuhr was very angry. He came back and reported that fact to his father, who at once went up to Fuhr's house to see about it. He asked him if his hog had not come home. He replied: The appellant, upon finding that Fuhr was highly incensed turned away and went back home. This was in November, 1921.
Appellant and the deceased met occasionally thereafter and spoke to each other. One morning in February, 1922, appellant was helping his wife with some washing, and had gone to a well to draw a bucket of water. While thus engaged, the deceased came into the yard and said: 'Say, Bill, I have it you have been talking about me, and I am going to beat hell out of you right here.' Appellant replied: 'I haven't been talking about you; you ain't going to do that.' Appellant then picked up his bucket of water, went into the house, and shut the door. Deceased remained in the yard, and the wife went out and begged him to go away. He remained, and his threats continued, more violently. Finally appellant came out of the house and drew off his coat. Not a word was said and they commenced fighting with their fists. They fought around in the yard for a time, neither getting hold of the other, and neither getting down. Finally Fuhr picked up his hat and walked off. Appellant had struck his face two or three times in the scuffle.
They met a time or two thereafter and spoke to each other. On the morning of August 3, 1922, appellant was hauling water in a barrel on a little sled from a well on his place. The deceased was at the time hauling sand from a small creek farther east than the well. The road was a narrow country lane. By grading and erosion from rains it had worn down until there was a bank about four feet high on either side of it, from a point west of the appellant's house down to the creek on the east. On this day, as appellant was going for a barrel of water, carrying his small son on his arm, he met deceased going west towards his own home with a load of sand. They spoke. He said: Deceased said nothing for a minute, and looked at appellant and said: 'Don't you ever speak to me again.' Appellant went and got his barrel of water. His son Layton joined him and helped fill the barrel. He told Layton of meeting Fuhr and what the latter had said. When the barrel was filled, they started back up the road towards the house. Appellant was driving the team and walking beside the barrel, holding it on the sled with one hand. Layton was following some distance behind, carrying his young brother. About 30 or 40 feet from where they had first met, appellant again met the deceased, returning for another load of sand. The two men did not speak to each other. As Fuhr came up to Layton he said: 'Hi!' Layton replied: 'Go to hell!' Deceased called 'Whoa' to his horses, and without waiting for them to stop, dropped his lines, grabbed up his sand shovel, jumped out over the side of the wagon, and ran towards Layton with the shovel raised ready to strike. This shovel was not a spade nor a scoop; it had a rounded point similar to that formed by the closed fingers of the human hand. It had a long, straight handle, which tapered from the shovel to the other end, being largest at the shovel. It was of medium size and weight, neither light nor yet very heavy; it was old and the handle was brash. Layton ran a short distance toward his father, and hastily set the baby down on the edge of the bank, and turned to defend himself against Fuhr. He was a rather tall boy, weighing perhaps 140 or 150 pounds. Fuhr had the shovel drawn in a raised position. To prevent being struck, he undertook to grapple with Fuhr. The deceased, by his greater power and weight, threw him off, and as he pushed him away the boy slipped and fell backwards against the bank in a half-reclining position. The baby screamed.
Appellant stopped his team, picked the baby up from the road, and set him on the corner of the sled. By this time Fuhr and Layton had gotten together. He saw Fuhr throw the boy to one side and raise the shovel to strike him, when appellant ran in and caught the blow intended for Layton on his own arm. It grazed the arm from the wrist to almost the elbow. taking the skin off. He then grasped the handle of the shovel. It was a long handle, small enough to be clasped by the hand. For an instant they struggled to secure possession of the shovel. Finally the appellant wrenched it from Fuhr's hands. When the appellant secured possession of the shovel, he struck Fuhr several times over the head with it. At the last blow the shovel was broken off of the handle. Fuhr persisted in the fight. Appellant was left with the handle in his hands. It was then much like a club. With it he struck at deceased again, and at the second blow he struck Fuhr and...
To continue reading
Request your trial