Wigginton v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 24 November 1891
• Citation: 92 Ky. 282,17 S.W. 634
• Parties: Wigginton et al. v. Commonwealth.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

17 S.W. 634

92 Ky. 282

Wigginton et al. v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 24, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county. Affirmed.

"To be officially reported."

J. L Wigginton and his two sons Charles and Frank were convicted of murder, and appeal.

Lewis J.

Appellants John L. Wigginton, father, and Charles and Frank Wigginton unmarried sons, having been jointly indicted for murder of Buck Watts by poisoning, were convicted. The deceased was at time of his death living on and had management of a farm belonging to his father-in-law, Ferguson, and they, with their wives, occupied the same dwelling-house. That the death of Watts was caused by poison intentionally put into a coffee-pot, from which he drank at breakfast, is placed by the evidence beyond question, for of the three persons who on that occasion took coffee all were immediately made sick, and Ferguson, as well as Watts, died next day, evidently of poison, while those (there being others at the breakfast table) who took no coffee were not at all affected. Besides though no scientific analysis was made, the presence of a substance like arsenic was afterwards discovered in the coffee-pot. The testimony of Mrs. Ferguson is that the coffee she made for supper the evening before was not entirely consumed, though drank with impunity, and she left the grounds in the pot, which were reboiled for the fatal breakfast. It is also shown that there was not at the time any poison about the house, and consequently the arsenic which caused the death of Watts and Ferguson could not have been put into the vessel accidentally or by mistake. It appears that the coffee-pot had been left during the night in the kitchen, to the outside door of which there was a latch, but no fastening; and that appellants were well acquainted with the character and situation of the buildings and grounds, having lived and worked on the Ferguson farm, though occupying another dwelling-house, up to about two weeks before death of Watts. The evidence also shows there was bad feeling on the part of each of the appellants towards deceased, growing out of dispute of what was due, if anything, to them for work they had done on the farm; and that distinct threats had been made against him by both Charles and Frank, while John L. had expressed dissatisfaction in strong terms at not himself being paid what he claimed was owing, and on one occasion said in substance that if deceased did not pay he would regret it, if not in this, in the next, world. It is proper to state in this connection that in a conversation between deceased and Charles, a short time before the killing, that a witness present describes as "rough talk," the former contended that, after broken window-glass, and rails burned together, with the loss he had sustained by their failure to work on the farm according to contract, were accounted for, he would not owe either of them anything. The record shows that appellants were thriftless, and being, as Charles told the deceased, out of food, they were sore and resentful at him for refusing to pay what they contended he owed them, and which they needed to buy something to eat. It therefore seems to be sufficiently established that the accused had both the opportunity and motive for committing the crime with which they are charged. But, independent of confessions, the only circumstances proved which tend to connect them with the crime are: First, the presence of Charles on the farm and in the kitchen the day before; second, that a fire was made, and noise heard by a neighbor, at an unusual time, between 11 and 12 o'clock on the night before the killing, at the house where appellants then lived, about two miles from the Ferguson farm; and, third, that Charles, the day before, went to Mt. Sterling, which fact was in corroboration of his subsequent admission that he at that time and place purchased the arsenic put into the coffee-pot. It is therefore manifest that the vital question in this case is whether the lower court properly permitted the alleged confessions proved.

It appears that, soon after the deaths of Watts and Ferguson three persons, peace-officers, went from Mt. Sterling to the place where appellants then lived; two of the officers going to a field, where Charles and Frank, together with two smaller brothers, were shucking corn, and, upon one of the officers (the jailer) announcing that they had come there to arrest Charles and Frank for murder of Ferguson and Watts, one of the small boys threw up his hands, and besought them for God's sake not to hang his old pap, who didn't have anything to do with it, but would tell all about it. No protestation of innocence or explanation was then made by either Charles or Frank, although the same statement was several times made by their small brother, except that Charles said that when they got to his fathe...