Watson v. State

• Decision Date: 19 June 1918
• Docket Number: (No. 4450.)
• Parties: WATSON v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

205 S.W. 662

WATSON v. STATE.

(No. 4450.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 19, 1918.

Rehearing Denied October 9, 1918.

Appeal from District Court, McLennan County; Richard I. Munroe, Judge.

T. R. Watson was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Pat M. Neff, of Waco, R. M. Edwards, of Fairfield, J. Ross Bell, of Teague, L. T. Dashiell, of Centerville, and Jed C. Adams, of Dallas, for appellant. John B. McNamara, Co. Atty., of Waco, Cullen F. Thomas, of Dallas, Williams & Williams, of Waco, and E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DAVIDSON, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of murder and allotted a long term of years in the penitentiary.

The party alleged to be killed was John S. Patterson. The facts show that Mr. Patterson was commissioner of banking and insurance of the state of Texas, and as such had charge of enforcing the law with reference to banking in the state. Appellant and his two sons, J. E. and W. R. Watson, were bankers in Freestone county, in the town of Teague, and had been for several years. The bank had been in serious trouble from a financial standpoint and its management prior to the time Patterson became commissioner of banking and insurance. Appellant and his two sons, who were respectively president, vice president, and cashier, controlled and managed the bank and its affairs. There seems from the testimony to have been but little, if any, conference between these three parties and the board of directors of the bank. The bank had been in trouble with Mr. Collier, Mr. Patterson's predecessor.

The record is very voluminous on legal questions as well as evidence, covering 1,600 or 1,700 pages of typewritten matter. This includes the original bill of exceptions with reference to change of venue. There is a great deal of testimony in the record showing the trouble between the banking commissioner and appellant and his sons with reference to their management of the bank and its affairs. This runs through several years. Several bank examiners had gone over the affairs of the bank and found it practically in an insolvent condition as far back as 1914, if not in 1913. These bank examiners had talked at various times with appellant about the condition of the bank and sought in various ways to assist the officers in keeping the bank in a solvent condition. The bank seems to have been run in violation of the banking laws of the state in sundry ways. These matters are all set out in the record and unnecessary to be repeated. Appellant was notified of these conditions by these examiners, and by, it seems, Mr. Collier as well as Mr. Patterson, and was warned that the bank must rectify its affairs or be closed. Promises were made by appellant to conform to the law, but were not carried out. Finally, in 1916, conferences were held between one or more of the bank examiners and appellant and one or both of his sons, in regard to the condition of the bank and its failure to comply with the law in many respects, and promises were made by appellant that these matters would be rectified and the bank put upon a proper basis. The insolvent condition was fully and freely discussed; also that its reserve was far below that required by the law, and that appellant and sons as officers of the bank had borrowed for themselves from the bank far beyond what the law authorized, and this without an order or the consent of the directors. Many of these matters are evidenced in writing and correspondence with appellant. Some of these warnings given appellant as president were in writing and some in conversations. About May or June, 1916, the affairs of the bank were again examined by the bank examiner and found to be insolvent, and the bank examiner had a conversation with appellant at Hillsboro, not wishing to go to Teague where the bank was in order to avoid calling attention to its condition and thereby injuring the bank. Their purpose was as stated to assist appellant in putting the bank "on its feet." The policy of the commissioner of banking and insurance was not to wreck, but to sustain all banks of the state, and to this end he rendered all assistance possible to avoid closing it. In May or June the reserve was far below what the law demanded, and in August, at the time of the killing, instead of having the bank reserve which was supposed to be in excess of $15,000, it only had on hand in its cash reserve less than $2,000. When this condition was ascertained from the report of the bank examiner Mr. Patterson, with Mr. McKinnon, one of the bank examiners, went to Teague and went over the bank books and found the bank hopelessly insolvent and burdened with forged paper to approximately $60,000. All previous efforts to assist the bank had been disregarded, and the promises of appellant and his sons were not fulfilled, nor was there sought to be any compliance with the demands of the commissioner under the agreement on the part of appellant. There was also a great deal of forged paper in the bank carried as assets. These forgeries, amounted, it seems, to $60,000, equaling the capital stock in amount. A number of these forged papers and perhaps other papers were in possession of McKinnon and Mr. Patterson at the time of the homicide. Some of them were in the grip of McKinnon, and it seems some of them in the grip carried by Mr. Patterson. On the evening of the homicide the bank matters were gone over by Patterson and McKinnon in the bank. The closing hour of the day arrived and the bank was closed for business. Appellant left the bank and went to his residence a few blocks away. J. E. and W. R. Watson, sons of appellant, and officials of the bank, remained. The bank matters were gone over and discussed, and the cash reserve counted and found to be less than $2,000. This money was placed in the safe, locked, and the time combination turned. One of the sons alone had the combination and knew how to open the safe. Among other items of cash was $890 in currency. This was placed in the safe. A day or two afterwards when the officers took charge of the bank and placed it in the hands of a receiver this $890 had disappeared from the safe. No one it seems had been in the bank from the time it was closed on the evening of the homicide, so as to get in the safe, unless it was appellant or his son. This became the subject of evidence and an issue on the trial. After appellant left the bank at the closing hour in the evening, and after a conversation between the parties with reference to other matters mentioned, appellant was requested by one of his sons over the phone to come to the bank, stating that there was trouble. Appellant shows when he received this message, not knowing what trouble was meant, got his pistol and carried it with him to the bank. Upon entering the bank his two sons and McKinnon and Patterson were its occupants. A conversation occurred in which the different parties engaged and appellant was notified that the bank would be closed permanently, and Mr. Patterson ordered Mr. McKinnon to place a notice on the window to the effect that the bank was so closed. Appellant's testimony is to the effect that he asked Patterson to defer this three days; that he could perhaps make arrangements to put in it the proper reserve and carry on the bank business. This was not agreed to by Patterson, and the evidence tends to show that he told him that he had been trying to assist them carry on the bank in its insolvent condition and assist him under promises that appellant would rectify things, that he had not done so, and it would be closed. At this juncture Patterson started out of the bank. The evidence is conflicting as to just the position of the parties at this time. The evidence shows that as Patterson passed out of the door appellant shot him, then turned and fired at McKinnon. McKinnon testifies after appellant fired one shot at him that one of appellant's sons, J. E. Watson, grabbed or took the pistol from his father and fired at him two or three times as he ran out the back way. Patterson had his leather case or grip in his hand with papers in it at the time he was shot. McKinnon's grip with other papers in it was left in the bank in his flight. After Patterson left the door of the bank was immediately closed and the three Watsons remained in there from 15 to 30 minutes. When McKinnon recovered his grip that night it had been broken open and some of the papers had disappeared. Appellant, after these transactions, left the bank, going the back way and went a different street towards his home from that he usually traveled. He was seen by a boy to throw torn papers in the weeds along the trail he was following en route to his house. These were torn up notes or checks that had been in the possession of McKinnon and taken from his grip. The boy, thinking they were candidate cards appellant had thrown in the weeds, went to get them, as he said, to prepare them as a deck of "flinch cards." Upon reaching the scene he found they were not candidate cards, but were torn up papers. Appellant says these papers were torn by his sons and handed to him, and in going home he threw them away at the place designated. The testimony of the boy indicates that appellant tore them himself and threw them away. It is not considered material whether they were torn in the bank or after he left it. Upon the arrival of the stepfather of the boy at home that night the boy informed him of what he had seen, and he instructed the boy to get the papers, which he did the next morning. They fell into the hands finally of the receiver of the bank. These were some of the papers that carried evidence of forgery. Appellant claimed in his testimony that he was not aware of the fact that these notes were forgeries. To go into detail would make the statement too lengthy, and it is dismissed with the statement that he was evidently aware of the fact of the insolvent condition of the bank and had been two or three years, and...