Welch v. State

Citation3 N.E. 850, 104 Ind. 347
Case DateDecember 15, 1885
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

104 Ind. 347
3 N.E. 850

Welch
v.
State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Filed December 15, 1885.


Appeal from Monroe circuit court.


Landen & Miers, for appellant.

J. E. Henley, for appellee.


MITCHELL, J.

The indictment in this record charges, with proper formality, that on the fourth day of January, 1885, William Welch did feloniously, etc., kill and murder one Louis Fedder, by then and there feloniously, etc., “striking him, the said Louis Fedder, upon his head with a dangerous and deadly weapon, to-wit, a large heavy club, which he, the said William Welch, had and held in his hands.” The only objection made to the indictment is that, by the omission of the words “then and there” after the name of the accused, as last above set out, it fails to allege that the defendant had the club in his hand at the time of the beating and striking. Within the ruling in Dennis v. State, 2 N. E. Rep. 349, there is no force in this objection.

The accused was found guilty of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment for life. His conviction rests largely, if not entirely, upon the testimony of one Matthew James, whose evidence relates wholly to alleged confessions or admissions made by the defendant to him. Besides the testimony of James are some criminating circumstances of more or less weight.

The evidence of the alleged confession, as detailed by this witness, is not altogether free from suspicion; and the circumstances under which it is said to have been made, and the not altogether unblemished reputation of the witness, as it is made to appear in the record, detract somewhat from the force and reasonableness of the confession as related by

[3 N.E. 851]

him. Notwithstanding this, considering the other circumstances which appear, since the jury have passed upon it, we should hesitate to disturb their finding on the evidence. The witness testified that the defendant made admissions to him, indicative of his guilt, in the presence of Andrew Cooper, and Charles Young. Both of these persons were called as witnesses for the defense, and both denied having heard anything of the kind testified to by James.

Cooper, having testified on his direct examination that he heard no confession made by the defendant to James, and no talk between them about the murder of Fedder, was asked, on cross-examination by counsel for the state, this question: “I will ask you if, in the barber shop of William Profit here in Bloomington, you did not say there that morning that you knew Bill Welch was the man that killed Louis Fedder?” To this question the appellant objected, for the reason that it was asking the witness for an opinion expressed by him out of hearing of defendant, and was not asking for a fact, and was not a cross-examination, which objection was overruled, and defendant excepted, and the witness answered, “I did not.” The state then asked the witness, “And if you did not say there that you were willing to bet $250 that Bill Welch was the guilty man?” To this question the appellant again objected, for the reason stated. The objection was again overruled and the witness answered, “I did not.” The state then called William Profit, and asked him the following question: “State to the jury whether you heard him [Andy Cooper] make the remark that ‘William Welch or Bill Welch is the man who murdered old man Fedder. I am not guessing at it; I know it.” To this the appellant objected, for the reason that the question was illegal and incompetent, and was hearsay evidence, and was an effort to impeach a witness on irrelevant and immaterial matter, and that the question referred to the opinion of an outside party; which objection the court overruled,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State v. Matheson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1905
    ...364); Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130 (41 S.W. 1031); Drake v. State, 29 Tex. Ct. App. 265 (15 S.W. 725); Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347 (3 N.E. 850). It is also said properly that the answer solicited by a witness on cross-examination as to collateral matter cannot be contra......
  • Webb v. City of Seattle, 29507.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 16, 1945
    ...13 N.W. 364; Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130, 41 S.W. 1031; Drake v. State, 29 Tex.App. 265, 15 S.W. 725; Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347, 3 N.E. 850.' Accord: Norman v. Shipowners' Stevedore Co., 59 Wash. 244, 109 P. 1012. We find the holding in Backstrom v. Kaufmann Dept. St......
  • State v. Matheson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1905
    ...364;Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130, 41 S. W. 1031;Drake v. State (Tex. App.) 15 S. W. 725;Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 349, 3 N. E. 850. It is also said properly that the answer solicited by a witness on cross–examination as to collateral matter cannot be contradicted; “collat......
  • Reddick v. Young, No. 22,111.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 28, 1912
    ...is collateral is this, Would the cross-examining party be entitled to prove it as a part of his case? *** Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347, 351, 352 [3 N. E. 850].” It has also been held by this court, in Seller v. Jenkins, 97 Ind. 430, 434-439, that, while the rule is that evidence contradicti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • State v. Matheson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1905
    ...364); Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130 (41 S.W. 1031); Drake v. State, 29 Tex. Ct. App. 265 (15 S.W. 725); Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347 (3 N.E. 850). It is also said properly that the answer solicited by a witness on cross-examination as to collateral matter cannot be contra......
  • Webb v. City of Seattle, 29507.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • March 16, 1945
    ...13 N.W. 364; Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130, 41 S.W. 1031; Drake v. State, 29 Tex.App. 265, 15 S.W. 725; Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347, 3 N.E. 850.' Accord: Norman v. Shipowners' Stevedore Co., 59 Wash. 244, 109 P. 1012. We find the holding in Backstrom v. Kaufmann Dept. St......
  • State v. Matheson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 10, 1905
    ...364;Saunders v. City & Suburban R. Co., 99 Tenn. 130, 41 S. W. 1031;Drake v. State (Tex. App.) 15 S. W. 725;Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 349, 3 N. E. 850. It is also said properly that the answer solicited by a witness on cross–examination as to collateral matter cannot be contradicted; “collat......
  • Reddick v. Young, No. 22,111.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 28, 1912
    ...is collateral is this, Would the cross-examining party be entitled to prove it as a part of his case? *** Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347, 351, 352 [3 N. E. 850].” It has also been held by this court, in Seller v. Jenkins, 97 Ind. 430, 434-439, that, while the rule is that evidence contradicti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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