The State v. Rector

Decision Date09 November 1894
Citation23 S.W. 1074,126 Mo. 328
PartiesThe State v. Rector, Appellant. [*]
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Perry Circuit Court. -- Hon. James D. Fox, Judge.

The defendant was tried for the crime of murder in the first degree, resulting, after a severance granted, in conviction of the second degree of that offense; punishment, ten years in the penitentiary.

The charging part and conclusion of the indictment under which the trial occurred are as follows:

"That Henry Willis on the first day of June, A. D. 1892, at the county of Perry and state of Missouri, in and upon the body of one Charles Cargile, then and there being, feloniously wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, did make an assault, and that the said Henry Willis some heavy weapon or instrument, to these jurors unknown, which said instrument or weapon, he, the said Henry Willis, in his hand, then and there had and held, then and there feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose and of his malice afore-thought, did forcibly strike and beat the said Charles Cargile in and upon the body of the said Charles Cargile, fracturing and breaking the neck of the said Charles Cargile, giving to him, the said Charles Cargile, a mortal injury, of which said mortal injury he, the said Charles Cargile, did then and there instantly die; and that John Rector then and there, feloniously, wilfully deliberately, premeditatedly, on purpose and of his malice aforethought, was present, aiding, helping, abetting, comforting, assisting and maintaining the said Henry Willis in the felony and murder aforesaid, in manner and form, aforesaid, to do and commit.

"And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say that the said Henry Willis and John Rector him, the said Charles Cargile, in manner and form aforesaid did kill and murder, against the peace and dignity of the state.

John B. Davis,

"Prosecuting Attorney."

The substance of the testimony in this case as to how Cargile came to his death is embodied in the following statement Sheriff Anderson testified to as having been made by Willis to him:

"L. M. Anderson being produced, sworn and examined on the part of the state, testified as follows: I am the sheriff and jailer of Perry county, and as such have had defendant and Henry Willis in my custody since their commitment to jail on the charge of murdering Charles Cargile. Rector made no statement to me about the difficulty with Cargile, but Willis made a statement in the presence of Rector. Willis said that they (meaning the Rector family including Willis) had been run out of their shanty by the high water, and that on the morning of the day Cargile died (the water having gone down before that) he and John Rector, Ed. Rector and old man Rector went up to the cabin to clean it out. That when they got there old man Cargile was there. That Cargile said to Willis, 'It looks pretty luxious here.' That Willis replied, 'If you call mud and water luxious, I guess it is.' That Cargile then said to Willis, 'Did you see any of my posts down here?' That Willis answered, 'There aint any of your posts here.' That Cargile then said to Willis, 'You are a damned lying son of a bitch.' That at the time of saying this Cargile drew his knife. That Willis then ran at Cargile and hit him with his fist on the right side of the neck. That Willis then ran back and took the hoe off of Rector's shoulder and hit Cargile on the back with it as Cargile was coming at him with an open knife, and that he then ran after Cargile as the latter started to run and threw the hoe at him and hit him on the hip. That Cargile, after running a little piece, turned around and said to Willis, 'You've played hell.' Willis made the statements detailed by me a few days after he was put in jail, some time in the fore part of June, 1892, and has made the same statement to me at different times since then. He made the statement of the occurrence given by me before he had had any opportunity of seeing and consulting a lawyer. He and Rector had no counsel until the court appointed counsel at the October term, 1892."

The testimony of Edward Rector, a brother of defendant, in its material portions is as follows: "On the morning of the day Cargile died, my father, William Rector, my brother, John Rector, Henry Willis and myself, went to our shanty to clean it out so that we could move back into it. We had been run out of the shanty some weeks before that by high water and had been camping at a high place in a tent some three or four hundred yards south of the shanty. We took a hoe along with us to scrape the mud out of the shanty. John Rector carried the hoe and walked in front. Willis was close behind him, and my father and I last. When we got to the shanty we found Charles Cargile there. He was standing by a pen about fifteen or twenty steps from the shanty. He spoke to Willis and Willis stopped to talk to him. My father and I passed by them and went on into the shanty. John Rector, the defendant, also passed by them and came as far as the shanty door. About the time that we got into the shanty I heard Cargile call Henry Willis a damned lying son of a bitch, and threaten to cut his guts out. I then looked out of the shanty door and saw Henry Willis backing toward the shanty, while Cargile was coming at him with his knife open. Willis backed quickly until he reached the front of the shanty door where John Rector was standing with the hoe in his hand. Willis then grabbed the hoe out of John's hands and struck Cargile with it on the left side. Cargile then turned to run and Willis took two or three steps after him, and threw the hoe at him, striking him on the hip. Cargile continued to run until he got inside of the field, when he turned and said to Willis: 'You've played hell, God damn you!' The hoe with which Willis struck Cargile was a light garden hoe. On the day before this difficulty, John Long told Henry Willis and John Rector in my presence that Charles Cargile, on the Saturday previous, had said he intended to shoot them (Rector and Willis) on sight. John Rector, the defendant, took no part in the difficulty mentioned by me. He did not give Willis the hoe to strike Cargile with. Willis snatched it from him. If Willis had not struck Cargile with the hoe, Cargile would have cut him with the knife. Cargile was close to him and coming at him as he backed and struck with the hoe. Cargile held the knife open and drawn ready to strike. It was a long blade. (Here witness is shown the knife identified by Willie Cargile and others.) That looks like the knife Cargile had. He had the big blade open when he was coming at Willis. If Willis hadn't backed very fast, Cargile would have cut him before he got hold of the hoe. I did not see Cargile fall in the field after the difficulty was over. I went back into the shanty and helped clean it out. The door of the shanty is on the south side. Cargile ran around the house and went north towards his house after the fight. I did not see Willis hit Cargile with his fist. I suppose this took place before I looked out of the shanty. John Rector and Henry Willis helped us rake mud out of the shanty for about an hour after the fight was over. They then took the boat and said they were going to Peter Tucker's. They came back about 4 o'clock, P. M. During the day we got moved back into the shanty. John and Willis stayed around the shanty that evening and night. We heard two shots fired at about 8 o'clock. We all went to bed that evening at about an hour and a half after sundown. When we heard the shots we looked out but did not see or hear anything. * * * At about four o'clock on the afternoon of the day after the inquest, John Rector, Henry Willis and I started to Peter Tucker's after some tobacco. We were in the boat and rowing across the bayou when we heard two shots, one right after the other, close to us, and heard the shot strike around us. One shot passed through my hat. We looked and saw several men coming toward us. After the shooting commenced, Willis said, 'Let's jump out, or they will hit us.' Accordingly, John Rector and Willis jumped out and waded through the water. I staid in the boat. When the shooting commenced John was rowing, Willis was sitting in the stern, and I in the bow of the boat. The first I heard was the shooting. They never halted us before they shot. I did not hear anybody halloo halt until after two shots were fired. I did not know anybody except me and John and Henry were around until I heard the guns go off and heard the shot hitting around us. John and Henry jumped out and ran in order to keep from being shot."

The testimony of Willis, the co-indictee of defendant, in so far as important to be quoted, is this: "On the morning of the difficulty at about 7 or 8 o'clock I went with my cousins John and Ed Rector and my uncle William Rector from our tent to the shanty. We went to clean the mud out of the shanty in order to move back into it. The water then had gone down and left the shanty. John Rector carried a small garden hoe on his shoulder to be used in scraping the mud out of the shanty. When we neared the shanty we saw Cargile standing by a log pen close to the shanty. I was in front and he spoke to me saying: 'Good morning, Willis.' I said good morning to answer him. He said, 'This looks bilious down here.' I said 'Yes.' He then began to talk about some posts he had lost by the overflow and asked me if I had seen anything of them. I told him no, that there were none of his posts about there. He then called me a damned liar and drew back to hit me. He was in reach of me, and in order to prevent him from striking me I hit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • The State v. Hunt
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1905
    ... ... Welch, 28 Mo. 600; State v ... Krueger, 47 Mo. 530; State v. Rockforde, 52 Mo ... 199; State v. Maupin, 57 Mo. 205; State v ... Raymond, 54 Mo.App. 425; State v. Stegall, 65 ... Mo.App. 243; State v. Ellis, 71 Mo.App. 269; ... State v. Fugate, 66 Mo.App. 625; State v ... Rector, 126 Mo. 328; State v. Hogan, 164 Mo ... 654; State v. Shierauf, 167 Mo. 429; State v ... Gassord, 103 Mo.App. 143. (3) The building is not ... identified by charging or averring ownership. State v ... Pollock, 105 Mo.App. 273. (4) The information was filed ... on September 8, 1904, and the ... ...
  • The State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 26, 1910
    ... ... G. Revelle, Assistant ... Attorney-General, for the State ...          (1) The ... information charges with certainty the essential elements of ... the crime, and follows well-considered precedents in criminal ... pleading. State v. Kindred, 48 Mo. 279; State v ... Rector, 126 Mo. 328; State v. Barrington, 198 ... Mo. 36. (2) The record discloses that defendant was duly ... arraigned, a jury properly chosen and sworn, the cause tried ... according to orderly procedure, a verdict of guilty returned, ... and the defendant sentenced in pursuance thereof. The record ... ...

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