Woolbright v. State

Decision Date29 May 1916
Docket Number26
Citation187 S.W. 166,124 Ark. 197
PartiesWOOLBRIGHT v. STATE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Cross Circuit Court, Second Division, W. J. Driver Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This appeal is prosecuted by Henry Woolbright from a judgment for assault with intent to kill one B. F. Palmer.

It appears from the testimony that bad feeling was engendered as the result of appellant's failure to win a law suit brought in the justice court by him against Palmer, his tenant. He was greatly dissatisfied with the judgment refused to pay the costs and made threats in the presence of several persons that he would beat h out of Palmer the first time he caught him out. As the parties were leaving town in the afternoon of the day of the trial, appellant rode out a part of the way with W. R. Palmer, who stated, he said "Well I fed him all the year and now he has beat me out of it," or something to that effect. Of course, I can't remember everything, but during the conversation he said, "If he don't look sharp or ain't careful I will beat h out of him." Witness replied, "You have had trouble enough," and advised it would be better not to have any more.

Wash and Leman, sons of appellant, and Sam Rogers, a boy about 18 years old, started out of town riding in his wagon, overtook appellant who got in with them and came upon B. F. Palmer, a man about 57 years of age, who in company with his wife was walking home from Vanndale, each carrying some packages of groceries. They drove up to Palmer, stopped the wagon and all got out except appellant, and with clubs assaulted and beat him, knocking him down two or three times or more and he remained unconscious from the beating for a week thereafter. Two gashes were cut in his head, to the skull, one three or more inches long and the other two.

Mrs Palmer testified that she and her husband left Vanndale about 4 o'clock with an armful of groceries and were in a half-mile of their home when overtaken by the assailants; that Wash came running with a club in his hand about 4 feet long, hallooed and told Ben "'Hold on there, you g d s of a b , we are going to settle with you now.'" He knocked my husband down, then the wagon came up with Henry, Leman and Sam Rogers. Leman jumped out, picked up a club and drawed back to hit Ben. He said to me, 'Shut your g d mouth,' and throwed and hit Ben on the left shoulder, and Wash knocked him down again, and then turned to his father, Henry, who was driving the wagon and asked him if that would do, and Henry replied, 'Them is baby licks; why don't you use your pistols?'" After Ben knocked her husband down again, she asked him not to hit him any more, and he replied, "'Now you have paid for what you eat,' and I said, 'Yes and more too.' Then he told Sam to hit him and Henry said: 'Come on, that will do.' They left laughing."

She identified the sticks that were used in beating her husband who made no attempt to resist the assault, and said he never spoke from the time he was knocked down for more than two weeks thereafter.

Neither appellant nor his son Wash testified, and Leman and Sam Rogers stated that when they came in the wagon to the turn in the road, they saw Wash talking to old man Palmer. Rogers said they were pointing their fingers at each other like they were quarreling and just before they reached them with the wagon, Wash struck at Palmer, who had his knife out, with his fist, and Leman ran up and asked what he meant by that and Palmer ran at Leman with the knife and Wash knocked him down; that the knife struck and cut Leman's coat. Palmer said something else to him that witness could not hear and Wash hit him again in the back of the head, struck him with a white oak stick witness thought. "Did not think the stick was as big as the one that was shown in court."

He testified that Henry Woolbright was in the wagon, a short distance away, all the time the fight was going on, and said nothing that he heard to encourage the fight and that he was as close to him as Mrs. Palmer. Said they went up to where the Palmers were and stopped the fight and after Wash knocked Palmer down the last time Mrs. Palmer said, "You fellows will have a job in court, if you don't mind." Wash said, "Get up and go on up the road." The first thing Wash said afterwards was, "We will have to go off somewhere to keep from paying a fine," and they did go to Helena that night and stayed away a day or two.

Leman stated that they were driving out in a wagon and his father got in after they left town and at that time they did not know where Wash was; that later he saw him and Mr. Palmer up the road and remarked, "I believe they are quarreling," and said to Sam Rogers, "Let's walk up there." When he got there he asked, "What does this mean?" and Mr. Palmer ran at him and struck at him twice with a knife and Wash knocked him down; that his father drove up about the time Wash struck Palmer with the club the second time and they got in and drove off. That his father said nothing whatever during the fight; that he and Sam jumped out of the wagon to go to where they were fighting because his father said, "That old man has got a pistol."

Will Campbell stated over appellant's objection that Wash Woolbright before he got in the wagon going home, asked, "How far down the road is old man Palmer?" and said, "If I catch up with him, I am going to cut his throat."

The court instructed the jury, refusing to give appellant's requested instruction that the fact that Wash fled after the crime was committed, should not be considered as proof against the defendant and before the jury could find him guilty of assault with intent to kill, they must find beyond a reasonable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Lisenby v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 8 Noviembre 1976
    ...abetting in the commission of a crime is equally guilty as reiterated in Cheeks v. State, 169 Ark. 1192, 278 S.W. 10; Woolbright v. State, 124 Ark. 197, 187 S.W. 166, and Lacy v. State, 177 Ark. 1056, 9 S.W.2d 314. These were assault with intent to kill cases but in them the accused, unlike......
  • Wilkes v. Hicks
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 29 Mayo 1916
    ... ... Robinson v. Robinson, 121 Ark. 276, 181 ... S.W. 300, the court said: "The established rule and the ... one adopted in this State is that the change of the ... beneficiary cannot be made by the insured unless there is ... substantial compliance with the by-laws and regulations ... ...
  • Woolbright v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 29 Mayo 1916

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