Watson v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 11 February 1909
• Citation: 116 S.W. 287,132 Ky. 46
• Parties: WATSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

116 S.W. 287

132 Ky. 46

WATSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 11, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County.

"To be officially reported."

Daniel Boone Watson, Jr., was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed.

Gourley Redwine & Gourley, J. M. McDaniel, and B. G. Williams, for appellant.

James Breathitt, Atty. Gen., and Tom L. McGregor, Asst. Atty. Gen for the Commonwealth.

SETTLE C.J.

The appellant, Daniel Boone Watson, Jr., shot and killed Daniel Boone Horn at his (appellant's) residence December 25 1907. Shortly thereafter the grand jury of Lee county found and returned in the circuit court of that county an indictment against appellant for the homicide, in which he was charged with the crime of murder. The trial in the circuit court resulted in a verdict from the jury finding appellant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and fixing his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary two years. Failing to obtain a new trial in the circuit court, appellant by this appeal seeks a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

The commonwealth introduced but one witness on the trial, Hiram Horn, a cousin and brother-in-law of deceased, who testified That a short time before the homicide he (deceased) and Ves Lynch stopped at appellant's home on their way to Sparks' store and purchased of him a pint and a half of whisky. From there they went to Sparks' store, about 200 yards distant, where they remained some time, perhaps two hours, and then returned to appellant's house; all being by that time intoxicated. That upon reaching appellant's house Lynch left the witness and deceased and went to his own home. After Lynch left them deceased insisted that witness again go with him into appellant's house, without stating his object in wishing to do so; but witness declined to enter the house with deceased, and the latter entered it himself, witness remaining on the outside. Witness did not see what happened when deceased first entered the house, but heard loud talking, and through the open door saw appellant's wife run across the room once or twice and deceased following her. Witness then went into the house and saw appellant behind a stove with a pistol in his hand and heard him tell deceased if he did not leave the house he would shoot him. At that time deceased, according to the witness' recollection, was in front of appellant and in the direction of the door, and just after appellant said he would shoot the pistol in his hand went off, and when it did so deceased, whose body received the pistol ball, fell out of the door to the ground and immediately died. Witness said he did not see a knife in the hand of deceased, and that he did not have a knife in his hand.

Appellant's version of the homicide differed very widely from that of the single witness for the commonwealth. He denied that he sold any whisky that day to deceased or to his companions, and said they bought it elsewhere and before coming to his house. He also testified: That when deceased returned to his house he was drunk and commenced to use indecent and vulgar language and to make indecent proposals to his wife in the presence of appellant, his little daughter, a Miss Duke, his nephew Walker Watson, and George Durbin; the last three being visitors to the family. That, seeing deceased was drunk, appellant remonstrated with him and informed him if he did not stop such talk he would have to leave the house, whereupon deceased said he intended to have intercourse (using an unmentionable word). "with the whole damn shooting match before he left the house," and then kicked one of the little girls under the piano, and another upon the forehead with such force as to cut the flesh. When this occurred Miss Duke and Durbin escaped to a room upstairs, and appellant's wife into an adjoining room, where she was followed by deceased, who caught her by the dress, told her he loved her better than did her husband, and attempted to throw her skirts over her head. Appellant further testified: That at this juncture he faced deceased with his pistol and told him if he did not at once leave the house he would shoot him; that, instead of leaving the house as ordered, deceased advanced upon him and attempted to cut him with a knife, and did in fact cut his clothing in several places; that at the same time the commonwealth's witness, Hiram Horn, who had in the meantime entered the room, also advanced upon appellant with a knife in his hand, seeing which, and believing himself and family in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of deceased and Hiram Horn, he shot first at the former and then at the latter, with the result that the one was killed and the other driven from the house. Immediately after the shooting appellant informed Sparks of what h...