The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-02-17
KILLED AT A PICNIC
AND WEBSTER sN0DGRAss WILL
SUFFER FOR THE CRIME.
The Evidence In the Murder Case OF MOT
gan Acknowledgment mrmeo ~
the Supreme Court Of Appeals

gress against the Commonwealth
This was a writ of error to Judgment
OF the circuit court of Wise county. rem
dered May II, 1892, affirming the Judgment
of the county court Of Deccmbe' g. 1871
and the plaintiff In error was convicted OF
murder IN the second degree and sem
fenced to eighteen years Imprisonment.
The evidence in the case showed that
Webster Snodgrass and others were at
tending a picnic at town called Norton
In Wise county. Snodgrass MAS neard 10
say that some one was going to die on
that day, and few minutes later Morgan
Thacker came In sight and Snodgrass re-
marked that there came the very man. n
little later he was seen talking angrlly
and profanely with Thacker. holding
pistol in his hand. A man who was be-
lieycd to be friendly to Snodgrass stood
near. and the plaintiff in error placed his
pistol under the arm Of the bystander. and
fired. MORALLY woundlng Thacker. The
friend OF Snodgrass suggested that II 1t
was an accident he should claim II as
such. which the accused did.
The theory Of the defense is that the
accused stood silent for brief time, then
walked out Of the place where the 9hoot-
ing occurred, but he went out either side
ways or backwards. holding the pistol IN
his hand, and pointing 1t towards the
wounded man.
The shooting was in saloon, where the
deceased entered with companion. and
minute later the shot was fired. On sew
eral occasions during the day the accused
had threatened to kill two men. without
naming them.
At the trial numerous exceptions were
taken to the rulings of the court. The
verdict which senttnced the accused to
the penitentiary for eighteen years was set
| aside. and a new trial was granted. The
circuit court affirmed the judgment OF The
county court. wh,reupon the case was
brought to this court.
The fiji assignment Of error is that the
record does not show that the special
grand jury was not ordered by the judge
I'm vacation. The assignment was aban-
doned In the argument upon the ruling in
| the case of Robinson against the Com
| monwealth.
The second assignment given is the
| action Of the court In finding for the
| Commonwealth upon this same question
raised by plea, In which there was 10
| error. The law does not require as this
| assignments insists. that a special grand
| the judge in vacation.
| In the fifth assignment of error II is
| stated that the court admitted the threats
| of the accused that ne intended TO kin
somebody before sunset This is no error.
| as the accused announced his purpose TO
| kill somebody on that day, and pointed
| out the deceased as the person he would
| kill, tried to get into a difficulty with
| him, and falling 10 create = row TO civ
| the desired preteXt, concealed himself
| behind some one. and deliberately shot
| and killed the decease ed. and then claimed
| that II was an accidental shooting.
The opinion holds that there is no sound
| principle upon which these threats were
| to be rejected. They were not all i'm
| personal, but such as were admissible
| as disclosing the motive.
The sixth assignment Of error has re-
| ference TO The action of the trial court
| in )verruiing the motion of the accused
to strike out the evidence OF hts threat
to the witness Robinette, and his at
tempt TO assault him. arguing that this
was n different offense for which the
accused was not on trial.
But this evidence was not offered or
used for the purpose Of a second prose-
cutlon, but to show the demeanor OF the
accused, as indicating his motive and
anlmus, who was defending himself by
| the assertion Of an accident, without evil
motive; while the evidence shows that the
accused threw himself into a passion,
and Used abusive and profane Language.
In reference to the action of the trial
court In recalling the witness, Culbertson.
| 10 ask him why he had advised the ac-
| cused to claim that the shooting was an
| accident, the opinion claims that IL does
| not appear to be an abuse OF the dis
cretionary power OF the trial court 10 re-
| cal witness to ask an explanation OF a
| statement already made. 1t was not an
| INJURY 10 the accused. 1t was proper that
| the trial court and jury should know
| "hether there was any special reason
| ior this, and the witness admitted that
ne was more friendly TO the accused than
| TO the deceased
| Inc eighth assignment Of error ia no
10 the action of the trial court in ex
Guiding hearsay evidence by the father
| OF the accused. OF what the accused said
| IN MS own behalf TO his father I'm So
| Cret' whereas the accused himself gave
| MS own version OF the affair under oath
as witness subject to cross examination.
ms excluded statement was hearsav
merely, and did not rise to the dignity
OF legal evidence.
| III was proper that the court should
| not interfere with the Commonwealth
| NPnN-
ishness OF the accused in threatening IN
assault Robinette when speaking words
or sympathy 10 the dying man. The
| prisoner was represented by able counsel
VINO had made their arguments unchaI-
| lensed, and II was also right and the
| duty or the Commemorative attorney
| TO represent the Commonwealth TO the
| best of his ability.
| 1.-THE record" reads the opinion. States
that on the motion Of the defendant the
case was continued for the defendant.
There Is no ground for believing that he
was not present. but the contrary.
First. The record states that ne made
this motion. which 1t would not have
stated If his counsel had made II.
Second. The record does not state that
| he had any counsel at this time, and
he probably had none.
Third. He was indicted at the Septem-
| Der term. This order was made at the
| October term. and at the November term
a motion was made for him by counsel,
and the record states that he was present
Fourth. If this point had really been
'n the case, the counsel. It may reasona-
bly, be inferred. would have stated Il in
| his petition for a writ OF error along
with the numerous other assignments OF
error. whereas it is not referred to until
the brief is prepared. a few days before
the trial"
The opinion was affirmed. .
The other opinions handed down were:
Field against Commonwealth. From
| cirucuit Court of Culpeper county. Az
| flrmed. Judge Lewis delivering opinion,
Judge Fauntleroy dissenting
Raub against Otterback. From Circuit
| Court of .NeXandria city. Affirmed, Judge
! Faun.Ieroy delivering opinion.
McCrowell against city Of Bristol. From
the Corporation Court OF the city Of Bris-
| fu1 Reversed Iudtrc Dfcbar1o,n datf,,