State v. Waters
| Decision Date | 08 May 1900 |
| Citation | 56 S.W. 734,156 Mo. 132 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WATERS. |
Appeal from circuit court, New Madrid county; Henry C. Riley, Judge.
Sam Waters was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Brown & Corbitt, for appellant. The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.
The defendant is a negro. In April, 1899, his wife owned three acres of land in the venue, on which he and his wife lived. Frank Holmes, of the same race, owned an adjoining tract of two acres, on which he and his wife lived. Some time previous to the occurrence which forms the subject of the charge contained in the indictment, a disagreement had arisen between Waters and Holmes respecting that fruitful subject of lawsuits and homicides, a division fence. As Holmes desired to withdraw from joining fences with Waters, he decided to erect his own fence, and, with that end in view, he and his wife, Millie, went out to build his own fence, and, while they were engaged in this work, Waters approached, and interposed objections, and, without waiting for response, and when only about 20 steps away, fired on Holmes, with a shotgun, the load of shot striking the victim squarely in the forehead, tore away its right part, and the victim fell dead. Not satisfied with this, defendant reloaded his gun, and shot down Holmes' widow, and then fled. A small hatchet was found some 20 steps from her body, which she had used in repairing the fence. Defendant, finally arrested at Cairo, Ill., and brought back to Missouri for trial, stated he did the killing, but, fearing mob violence, sought safety in flight. On trial had, the homicide by defendant was admitted, but a plea of self-defense was interposed, defendant testifying in his own behalf that Holmes was endeavoring to come over on defendant's land and join fences with that of defendant, and was working at the fence for that purpose, when defendant objected, and Holmes made at him with a hatchet, threw it at him, and tried to hit him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Furgerson
......R. S. 1899, sec. 2367; State v. Berlin, 42 Mo. 577. (4) The failure. of the court to instruct on all the law in the case was. properly objected and excepted to, and the request for it to. so instruct was both correct and timely. State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 111; State v. Waters, 156 Mo. 134. (5) The court should have instructed that proof of. defendant's bad character went to his credibility as a. witness, only, and was no evidence of his guilt. State v. Weeden, 133 Mo. 84. . . Edward. C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant. ......
-
State v. Coleman
...upon the law of the case; hence there was no error in its failure to do so. State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100, 23 S. W. 1091; State v. Waters, 156 Mo. 132, 56 S. W. 734; State v. Furgerson, 162 Mo. 668, 63 S. W. Defendant insists that the court erred in refusing to give the first, second, third......
-
State v. Coleman
...... instruction was asked on manslaughter in the fourth degree,. nor was the court's attention called to its failure to. instruct upon the law of the case, hence there was no error. in its failure to do so. [ State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100, 23 S.W. 1091; State v. Waters, 156 Mo. 132, 56. S.W. 734; State v. Furgerson, 162 Mo. 668, 63 S.W. 101.]. . . Defendant. insists that the court erred in refusing to give the first,. second, third and fourth instructions asked by him. These. instructions are all predicated on the theory that the. ......
-
State v. Furgerson
...being called in time to its failure to instruct upon the law of the case. State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100, 23 S. W. 1091; State v. Waters, 156 Mo. 132, 56 S. W. 734. There was, it is true, evidence that defendant had made many contradictory and incriminating statements with respect to matters......