Taylor v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 06 February 1896
• Citation: 34 S.W. 227
• Parties: TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

34 S.W. 227

TAYLOR v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 6, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Harland county.

"Not to be officially reported."

George W. Taylor appeals from a conviction of manslaughter. Affirmed.

N. B Hays, for appellant.

W. J Hendrick, for the Commonwealth.

DU RELLE, J.

The appellant had been convicted of manslaughter. It appears that one Johnson was moving into the house in which the killing took place, and which was some 250 yards across a creek from the house where appellant lived with a woman named Sarah Griffy. Johnson's wife, Robert Helton, and James Belcher were in the house with Johnson. There had been a forcible entry and detainer suit between Sarah Griffy, as plaintiff and Johnson, Wright Belcher, and George Brock, as defendants in which Sarah Griffy recovered possession of the house into which Johnson was moving. The defendants in that case had traversed, given an appeal bond and taken an appeal, but had not docketed the appeal or paid the state tax. About two weeks prior to the killing, Wright Belcher, Brock, and some others had gone to the house where the killing occurred found Sarah and some other women planting corn in the field surrounding it, and had fired some 50 shots into the ground and the woods. On the day of the killing, while Johnson and his party were in the house, appellant began to shout from the Griffy house, opposite. Johnson replied, and after considerable bad language a number of shots were exchanged between Johnson and appellant, neither of whom was hit; but one of appellant's shots killed Helton, who was inside the Johnson house. The evidence was very contradictory as to who fired the first shot. The instructions given were (1) as to murder; (2) as to voluntary manslaughter; (3) as to a reasonable doubt of the degree of the offense; (4) as to self-defense; and (5) as to the presumption in favor of innocence.

Appellant complains that the court erred, to his prejudice, in permitting Johnson and Wright Belcher to state that the sheriff had a writ and put them in possession of the house the morning of the killing, the objection being that this should have been proved by the return of the writ. This objection would have force, if the question of legal possession of the house were important in the case. But it was not. It was competent to show by Johnson that the sheriff had put him in possession of the house, and, as matter of mere inducement, to show that the sheriff had a writ. The evidence in the case furnishes no basis for an issue as to defense of property. The Johnson party had been in possession since morning, and at the time of the killing it was supper time. No attack seems...