Wilson v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 26 January 1900
• Parties: WILSON v. COMMONWEALTH. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

54 S.W. 946

WILSON v. COMMONWEALTH. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 26, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Fayette county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Ed Wilson was convicted of the offense of robbery, and he appeals. Reversed.

C. C Calhoun, for appellant.

HOBSON J.

Appellant Ed Wilson, was indicted in the Fayette circuit court for robbing G. B. Beautikofer of $20. On the first trial of the case, the jury failed to agree; on the second trial, he was found guilty, and his punishment fixed at three years in the penitentiary. Beautikofer testified on the trial that on the night of February 4, 1899, he was in Lexington in his milk wagon, and stopped at Lyon's Saloon, where he met appellant, Wilson, and gave him a drink; that from there they went to Bonta's Saloon, on Constitution street, where they both got drinks; that they went from there to Flinn's Saloon, on Third street, where he treated Wilson again; that appellant then left him, and started home; that out on the Winchester pike, as he was going along, Wilson stopped his horse, demanded his money, and commenced throwing rocks at him, saying that he would kill him, and so took from him all the money he had. He said that Wilson struck him with a rock on the knee, causing him to sink right down in the cart and on the steps. The commonwealth also introduced J. C Larkin, who said he saw Beautikofer's wagon on the side of the road, and a man standing near by the wagon, and as he came up the man ran off, but he could not catch him. The appellant, Wilson, testified that he left Beautikofer at Flinn's Saloon, and returned to Bonta's Saloon, on Constitution street; that he did not see Beautikofer any more, and did not know anything about the robbery, or have anything to do with it. He then introduced Henry Bonta, J. R Flinn, D. E. Bonta, Al Rumsey, John Atchison, and Charles Monroe, by whom he proved that Beautikofer was quite drunk; that he received the injury on his knee at Bonta's Saloon, at the hands of Bonta, from his having charged Bonta with robbing him in settlement of a milk bill; that appellant went away from there with Beautikofer, at Bonta's request, to get him away from that saloon, and returned in a few minutes, and stayed there for some time. If the jury had believed the testimony of these witnesses, they could not well have found appellant guilty. He also proved by his brother, Charles Wilson, that Beautikofer claimed to his father that some one had robbed him of six or seven dollars, and he thought it was appellant, but if his father would pay him five dollars he would let it drop. Beautikofer admitted making this proposition, and there was no other testimony on this subject. This being the evidence in the case, the commonwealth's attorney, in his closing argument to the jury, over objection and exception of appellant, said the following, as shown by the bill of exceptions: "That defendant's father had offered Beautikofer fifty dollars to withdraw the prosecution." "That the class of witnesses defendant had introduced were enough to convict him of itself alone. Old man Bonta and young Bonta and Al Rumsey and John Atchison and the negro boy, Charles Monroe,--a nice set, aren't they? Why, I know this set of Vine street rats. As city attorney and county attorney and commonwealth's attorney, I have had dealings with them; and who would believe anything they would say? Look this town over, and you cannot find a worse set anywhere." There was no evidence that appellant's father had offered Beautikofer anything. The only proof was that Beautikofer had proposed to take five dollars. The commonwealth's attorney is an...