White v. State

Decision Date12 April 1899
Citation50 S.W. 705
PartiesWHITE v. STATE.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

Appeal from district court, Bastrop county; Ed. R. Sinks, Judge.

Allen White was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

Jones & Jones, for appellant. Robt. A. John, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROOKS, J.

Appellant was indicted for the murder of Louis Drisdale. The first trial resulted in a judgment of conviction of murder in the first degree, with a life penalty attached. A new trial was awarded appellant for some misconduct of the jury, and another trial resulted in the same verdict. From this last verdict he prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant's first assignment of error is that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and the evidence. It appears that the deceased, Louis Drisdale, was killed at the Colorado School House, in Bastrop county, on or about the 21st day of May, 1897, at night; that while sitting in the house, listening to a debate, some one from the outside fired in through the window, shooting the deceased. Henry Washington, witness for the state, among other things, testified as follows: "I had a conversation with appellant at Flower Hill Church a short time before the killing, and appellant asked me if Louis Drisdale, deceased, was mad at him for walking with Drisdale's wife; and I told him I did not know. Defendant said: `I am like Jesse James. I had just as soon have the game as the name.'" In reference to the time of the killing, he states that he swore at the coroner's inquest that the killing took place at 8:25 p. m.; that by that time he meant by the watch he had; that he did not say by that watch, at the coroner's inquest, that it was 8:25; that he started the watch running at 8 o'clock, and had to shake it every 15 or 20 minutes to keep it running; that it was about an hour and a half after he got to the church before the lamps were lighted, and the lamps were lighted about an hour and a half before the shooting; that Zack Barfield and one or two others went, immediately after the shooting, to Smithville for Constable Joe Sims, and they were gone about an hour and a half before they returned. Constable Joe Sims testified that it was 11 o'clock when Zack Barfield and the other parties came to his house and notified him of the shooting of the deceased. Zack Barfield testified that after the killing he got on his horse, and went with Ed Burleson to Smithville for Mr. Sims, the officer; that they rode in a fast gait. This witness, Barfield, further stated that he was present at the coroner's inquest held on the body of deceased the morning of the killing, and swore that the shooting was about 8:25; that he swore it was about 8:25, because Henry Washington said it was about that time by the watch. Zeik Adams, state's witness, testified that it must have been 10 o'clock when the killing occurred. Charley Grant, another witness for state, testified that it was about 10 o'clock when the shooting occurred. This witness further stated "that defendant saw him in his field, the next morning after the killing, and said, `Your sister Fannie told me a man was killed at Colorado School House last night,' and asked who it was. I told him it was Louis Drisdale. He then asked me if they knew who killed him, and I told him, `No.' He then asked me if they saw anybody, or were after anybody. I told him, `No.' He stayed with me about 15 minutes, but did not ask me how deceased was killed. He asked me no further questions, and did not say anything further about the killing." This witness stated that he was on the floor, speaking, when the shot was fired through the window from the outside. Charles Bell, for the state, testified: "I had a conversation with defendant about a month before the killing, and he told me that he like to have gotten in a row with Louis Drisdale about walking with Drisdale's wife; that, if Drisdale kept fooling with him, he would kill him." Deceased's wife testified that appellant walked with her on the second Sunday of February, 1897, from church, which was a short time before her husband was killed, and that she told her husband about it, and he told witness never to walk with appellant any more; that appellant was not the right kind of a man; that deceased said that appellant was not decent company for decent women. Adeline White, the divorced wife of appellant, testified: "Appellant talked to me, about Christmas, when he was out on bond. He came to my house about 10 o'clock, and stayed until 5 o'clock the next morning. He told me, while there, that he killed Louis Drisdale; that there were five more he wanted to kill. He threw his pistol down on me, and told me he would kill me if I told it." This conversation occurred about a month after the divorce was granted, and defendant knew that the divorce had been granted at the time of this conversation. Constable Joe Sims, in addition to the fact that he stated that the parties came after him at about 11 o'clock, and notified him that deceased had been killed, also stated that it was about two miles from the church, where the killing occurred, to Donnell's, where appellant lived at that time; that witness went to the church early the next morning, and found deceased sitting on the bench, with his head leaning against the back of the bench, being in the position he was in when killed. A ball had entered the left side of the head, and passed through, and lodged under the skin on the opposite side; that witness cut it out, and had it then in his possession; that it was a 45-caliber six-shooter ball; that the ball was in two pieces when taken from the deceased's head; and that a part was never taken from the head. The butt end of the ball or hollow shows that it is a 45-caliber. Witness had had considerable experience in the use of firearms, and stated positively that the ball with which the deceased was shot was a 45-caliber six-shooter ball; that the ball taken from deceased's head weighed 16 grains less than a 45-caliber, but it shows that it lost that much going through the head. Witness was at the school house the morning after the killing. There was a track near the road, some distance from the school house. The track was made by a No. 8 shoe, though he did not measure it. "I had on a No. 7 or 7½ shoe on my foot. I put my foot in the track, and the track just about fit my shoe." Witness went to the school house early the next morning after the killing, and examined carefully for tracks of the person who did the shooting; but, owing to the grass and weeds, and the condition of the ground near the window, he could discover no tracks near the window where the party was supposed to be who fired the shot. People had been passing all about the place, and there was no way of telling whether the track witness saw was made by the murderer or some one else. Willis Donnell testified that, just before appellant left his house on the night of the killing, witness exchanged pistols with appellant for the night; appellant taking with him witness' 45-caliber pistol, with five cartridges in its chambers, and left him his 44-caliber pistol, with four or five cartridges in its chambers. When appellant returned the next morning, and gave witness his pistol, he told witness that he had shot one load out of witness' pistol, but he would replace it. The next morning after the killing, as appellant and witness were at the lot fixing to go to the field to plow, witness noticed a great many people passing. Witness called appellant's attention to it, and appellant replied, "There is liable to be sad news go over the farm to-day." Witness did not ask him, and he did not explain, what he meant by that remark. Witness had not, at that time, heard of the death of the deceased. "Afterwards, at about 10 o'clock on the same day, appellant quit working for a short while, and went into an adjoining field, where Charley Green was at work, and upon his return he said to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Ingram v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 10, 1915
    ...70 S. W. 758; Austin v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. R. 328, 101 S. W. 1162; Bradshaw v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. R. 165, 94 S. W. 223; White v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 370, 50 S. W. 705; Sullivan v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 639, 51 S. W. 375. In this latter case Judge Davidson "It is well settled that the conf......
  • The State v. Henson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1921
    ... ... show that the appellant did not have this opportunity, and it ... was incumbent upon him to show this fact. He should, ... therefore, not be given a new trial on the ground of surprise ... arsing out of his own negligence. [Curry v ... Commonwealth, 25 Ky. L. 281, 74 S.W. 1077; White v ... State, 40 Tex. Crim. 366, 50 S.W. 705.] ...          However, ... if this contention was based upon facts which under the rule ... of procedure authorize either a continuance or the granting ... of a new trial, appellant is precluded from urging it here ... because on direct ... ...
  • State v. Henson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 19, 1921
    ...on the ground of surprise arising out of his own negligence. Curry v. Commonwealth, 25 Ky. Law Rep. 281, 74 S. W. 1077; White v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 366, 50 S. W. 705; Simnacher v. State (Tex. Cr. R.) 43 S. W. However, if this contention was based upon facts which under the rule of proced......
  • Aven v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 10, 1923
    ...asserts a different rule, but it has been modified in that respect. Sowles v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 17, 105 S. W. 170; White v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 366, 50 S. W. 705. In Sowles Case, supra, Judge Davidson, speaking for the court, "The rule now, as laid down by this court in the case of Ku......
  • 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