Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1886-03-06
JEFF. MUST HANG!
HIS LAST HOPE GONE!
THE SUPREME COURT SAYS THERE
WAS NO ERROR.
The Governor will Hardly Interfere.

WAS NO ERROR.
The Governor will Hardly Interfere.
The following telegram seems to settle
he fate of Jefferson Wilson:
Jefferson City, Mo-, March 1, 1856.
EDITOR INTELLIGENCER The Su-
oreme Court has just rendered a decision |
N the case of Jefferson Wilson, and the |
decision of the court below is affirmed.
The day of execution is set for Friday, |
April 2, 1886.
Wilson has already had two trials. The
supreme court, in its first decision, even
while it gave him new trial, declared
that the testimony proved that he had
a cOld-blOOded murder, it can
hardly be expected, therefore, that the
Governor will interfere, with a pardon.
So, at last, Jefferson Wilson seems to be
destined to pay with his life for the
killing of his mistress, Jennie Sanford.
IN THE SUPREME COURT, OCTOBER
TERM, 1886.
State of Missouri, Respondent.
VS..
Jefferson Wilson, Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The defendant was tried at the Oct.
term 1885, of the criminal court of Lafay-
cite county, ,and convicted of murder in
the first degree for killing one Jennie
Sanford, from which he has appealed.
This cause was before us at our last
April term on like appeal from like
Judgment of conviction, and was re-
versed upon the ground that the court
gave all instruction recognizing the
right of the jury to find defendant gull
ty of some grade of homicide below
murder in the first degree. There was
nothing said in the opinion as to the
grade of homicide below murder in
the first degree to which the evidence
might apply; but the opinion con-
tains the following language:
"The crime of which defendant
stands convicted, if testimony to that
effect from all the witnesses, except
defendant, be taken as true, and the
nature, number and direction of the
gun-shOt wounds be considered, was
an atrociously brutal murder without
| palliation or excuse. The testimony O
defendant in some particulars tended
to show circumstances extenuating the
offense; but when his whole testimony
is examined no possible doubt Cal
arise as to the existence of his guilt il
the degree affirmed by the verdict o
the jury" State VS.. Wilson (not ye
reported).
Upon the cause being remanded ant
coming up for trial, the criminal cour
eliminated and did not give the lnstruc
tions condemned by this court in it
opinion, but only gave instructions re
lating to the crime of murder in tn
first degree, and refused to instruct tn
Jury as to murder in the second degree
and the refusal of the court to give thi
instruction is the only ground of erro
relied upon by counsel to reverse tn
Judgment.
The evidence upon the second trial
substantially the same as that given O.
the first trial, except on the secont
trial the case of the state was strength
ened by the evidence of George Bul
lard, who was not examined as a wit
ness on the first trial, and who testi
fed that on the evening before the Kill
ing, or at least within two or thre
days before the occurrence, he hear
the defendant say:
"Jennie, the damned bitch, had gon
back on him; that he had $3.50 an
was going to leave the country, and
the damned bitch didn't behave her
self he would shoot her."
With the opinion of this court be
fore the trial Judge as a guide for hiI
in the trial, though reve rsed because {
an instruction being given in the form
: er trial recognizing the right of tf
!, jury to find the defendant guilty {
some other. grade of homicide tina
murder in the first degree, withou
stating tie grade Of homicide to Dhic
The eridemce applied; inasmuch q
this court, in the opinion re
versing the judgment in the forme
, trial did not intimate or suggest an
grade of homicide below murder in tn
first degree, which the evidence tende
to establish, and inasmuch as the trIs
Judge had to look to the opinion 70
guidance in conducting the trial, an
looking at it saw that this court, afte
considering the whole evidence of de
fendant. declared that no possibl
doubt could arise as to the existence @
the defendants guilt in the degre
affirmed by the jury, what else coul
the trial judge do but to confine tn
attention of the jury in its instruction
to the crime of murder in the first dc
gree, that being the crime of whicI
: we said from the whole of his evilenc
, there could be no possible doubt of hi
t guilt?
. Suppose the court had ignored this d,
claratiOn, and given an instruction IL
} murder in the second degree and the d,
fendant had been convicted and appea
> ed to this court, could he not have n
, lied confidently on the case of the Sta,
, vs.. Ross 4 Phillips "a Mo. AIS, whel
9 an instruction was given for murder j
q the second degree, and Ross was cor
victed of murder in that degree, frol
r which he appealed. Scott, Judge, sal
e that "it was no case for murder in I'll
+ second degree; for there can be 1
t doubt unless we stuliify ourselves an
# refuse to permit our judgments to
5 influenced by considerations whit