The State v. Cantlin

Decision Date21 November 1893
Citation23 S.W. 1091,118 Mo. 100
PartiesThe State v. Cantlin et al., Appellants
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court. -- Hon. Henry L. Edmunds Judge.

Robbery in the first degree is the charge in the indictment, on which charge the defendants were convicted and their punishment assessed at five years imprisonment in the penitentiary.

The charging portion of the indictment is this: "That Louis Hendricks, John Cantlin, Richard Cantlin, William Shadwick and Thomas Mooney, late of the city of St. Louis aforesaid and state aforesaid, on the ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, at the city of St. Louis aforesaid, with force and arms in and upon one, John Dougherty, feloniously did make an assault; and the said John Dougherty in fear of immediate injury to his person, then and there feloniously did put, and by force and violence to his person, $ 47, lawful money of the United States of the value of $ 47, all of the goods and property of the said John Dougherty, from the person and against the will of the said John Dougherty, then and there with force and violence as aforesaid, feloniously and violently did rob steal, take and carry away."

The testimony of Dougherty is to the effect that: The prosecuting witness was by trade a steam and gasfitter, but had for several years worked as a common laborer; had a wife and ten children, whom he had left in New Orleans until he was able to send for them; he had saved enough money from his earnings to send for them, and had $ 47 besides, and they were on their way to St. Louis on a steamer to join him when the alleged offense was committed; he was boarding meanwhile in a cheap lodging house kept by one Mrs. Farrington, where he paid $ 1 per week for his room. Appellants all lodged in the same house on the floor above Dougherty, and paid ten cents per night for their accommodation. The two Cantlins and Shadwick roomed together. The money above mentioned consisted of one new ten-dollar bill, five five-dollar bills, and six one-dollar bills, and was carried by Dougherty on his person in a small tobacco bag in his inside vest pocket.

On the afternoon of October 9, 1892 (a Sunday), about half past three o'clock, Dougherty went to a water-closet on the second floor of this lodging house, and while there took out the bag and the money, and was counting it over, the door being slightly ajar at the time, when appellant Mooney appeared at the door and, looking at him, remarked, "Quite a nice roll you have there." Dougherty answered, "Only a few pennies I have been saving up;" and immediately returned the money to his vest pocket. He was "somewhat surprised and alarmed" at being thus seen by Mooney, as he did not want any of his fellow lodgers to know that he had the money. Mooney walked away, and soon after Dougherty came from the closet into the hall. As he was walking toward his room, appellants John and Richard Cantlin seized him around the neck and shoulders, appellant Shadwick caught him by the legs, and appellant Mooney struck him with either a banister or bed slat. He was thus thrown and beaten down. Mooney thrust his hand into the vest pocket and took therefrom the little bag and money, and Dougherty became unconscious. On reviving, he found himself in the dining room with Mrs. Farrington and a Mr. Clark; he was bleeding profusely, and gave the alarm that his money had been taken. In a few minutes police officers came to the house, to whom he made the complaint, and the appellants were taken into custody, all four of them being found in a room on the third floor.

Dougherty acknowledged that on the evening before he had asked two other lodgers on his floor for the loan of a quarter to get his wash from the laundry (but did not get the money); and also that on this same Sunday afternoon he applied to a lady in the house for the same sum for the same purpose (which he did not get), but stated that he did not tell either of the parties that he had no money, and that he had requested the loan as he did not want to break any of his bills. He denied having been in the room of defendants that afternoon and having a fight there with them, or that he was acquainted with or associated with them, nor drank with them. And he also said that he did not see or know of his brother-in-law, Conley, having any difficulty with any of defendants at or about the time of the robbery; but he did not deny that Conley was there at that time. He further stated that after the robbery occurred he quit boarding at Mrs. Farrington's, giving as a reason therefor, that he was afraid of his life among the class of people who boarded there.

Annie Bogans a negro woman, whose social status was demonstrated by the marriage license of which she made prompt profert on taking the witness stand, testified in substance and in particular as follows: That she was not acquainted with Dougherty nor with any of defendants but Louis Hendricks, whom she always knew by the name of "Cincinnati Loui," and who on former occasions had often joined her in a social glass of beer at her house; that on the afternoon in question and about the time already stated, she was proceeding down town with a friend in order for the latter to take a street car, which being done, witness started to return home, and while on the street car tracks in the center of the street, and passing in the rear of Mrs. Farrington's boarding house on the rear or Eighth street side, she "heard such a skirmishing up stairs" and heard a man halloo "help," "watch," that she looked up and saw in the hall of the second story John and Richard Cantlin and William Shadwick holding Dougherty, while Louis Hendricks and Thomas Mooney were pounding him with clubs, and saw Mooney run his hand into Dougherty's pocket, and take his money out, whereupon witness hallooed to Hendricks and said "'Cincinnati Loui,' you ought to be ashamed of yourself;" that thereupon a large crowd gathered about the house, and to use the language of the witness "just after Mooney got the money he ran out on the second floor porch on the Eighth street side in front of everybody, and untied a little black bag and took out the money; Mooney then slid down one of the porch posts down into the crowd, and I hit him with a piece of wagon stick that I had in my hand and I said, 'there is the man who has the money,' and Louis Hendricks came out next after Mooney, and they all went back up stairs."

Police officer Callahan testified to arresting a number of men in the house shortly after the alleged robbery and taking them to the police station, where Dougherty identified the defendants as his assailants, and the others were released. Defendants were searched immediately after their arrest, but no money was found on them, nor in the room where they were arrested was money found, though search was made there just after arrests. When arrested, there were some bruises on John Cantlin's face.

On the part of defendants, the testimony showed the following: At about half past 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Sunday, October 9, 1892, appellants with some others, were in the room of the Cantlins on the third floor, drinking beer; after awhile Dougherty, with his brother-in law, one Conley, came to the door. Conley asked Richard Cantlin for his bucket to get some beer, which was refused. Conley then knocked Cantlin down. Dougherty ran into the room, exclaiming: "All hands off! a fair fight!" and advanced on John Cantlin; they began fighting, scuffled out into the the hall, and then Dougherty dragged Cantlin down the stairs to the second floor. Mooney alone followed to assist Cantlin, the others remaining in the room, securing a loose banister on the way down, and when he reached the lower hall, seeing Dougherty had Cantlin down on the floor, he "knocked Dougherty down and used him rather roughly." Cantlin also secured a piece of banister and was beating Daugherty with it, when Mrs. Farrington came out of the dining room and separated them, and Mooney and Cantlin returned to their room. Shadwick and the others had meanwhile separated Richard Cantlin from Conley, who disappeared, and Shadwick and Richard did not leave the room until arrested by the officer. Defendants all denied taking any money from Dougherty.

Defendants also introduced testimony establishing good character, and showing that Dougherty, in spite of his assertions to the contrary, was well acquainted with all of the defendants except perhaps Hendricks, and frequently was in their rooms laughing and drinking with them. The testimony of defendants themselves was abundantly supported by that of others who were in the room with them at the time the fight occurred.

Mrs Farrington testified that she had lain down that afternoon to take a nap, and about half past three heard Dougherty in the Hall calling for help. She opened the dining room door and saw what she took to be a fight going on in the hall. Mooney and one of the Cantlins had Dougherty down on the floor and were "pounding him with a club." She had to push them back to prevent them from hitting him after she entered the hall. She and a Mr. Clark took Dougherty into the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Hudson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1897
    ...trial of the cause. Defendant had opportunity, and, by due diligence and precaution, could have obtained the evidence from them. State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100. Defendant maintains that error is committed by the jury in returning a general verdict. He insists that it should have been found u......
  • State v. Sublett
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1905
    ...was asked by defendant, nor was the attention of the court called to its failure to instruct upon the whole case. State v. Cantlin, 118 Mo. 100, 23 S. W. 1091, and subsequent It is claimed that the state's sixth instruction is erroneous, in that, while it authorized the jury to take into co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT