The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-06-06
OPINIONS

day:
]. Q. A. Crews VS.. The State: convic-
ton for murder in the first degree with the
death penalty assessed; appealed from
Denton county.
The evidence for the State tends to show
that appellant, prior ITO the killing, had
quarrel with the sons of deceased, Muir
rell; that deceased interfered in this quar-
rel and attempted to arrange the matter
amicably; that, some days after this inter
ferance appellant procured gun, went
to the farm of deceased, laid in wait for
him, and, when he appeared shot and
killed him. The wife of deceased appear
ing on the scene at the time of the killing
was also shot and killed. After the double
killing defendant robbed Murrell of the
money in his purse, took horse owned
by deceased, and made his escape.
The evidence for defendant tended ito
show that deceased had made insulting
proposals Ito the wife of appellant, and
that the killing was done under the in
f1uence of the passion arising in the mind
of appellant because of these proposals.
Q) The trial court did not err in refusing
to charge on circumstantial evidence.
While it is true that no witness testifies
that he saw the act of killing, yet the
facts and circumstances of the case are
of character to place defendant in such
proximity and juXtapositiOn ito the fact
of killing as to render such charge unnec-
essary, and besides the statements of de-
ceased and Mrs. Merrell were in the ma
ture of positive evidence. 81 Or r.,
$50; 20 S. W., 926). The little boy in
the house heard Mrs. Murrell, just before
she received her death wound cry out to
Crews not to shoot. The deceased, as
part of the res gestae. said that Crews
had shot and robbed him.
~ The charge of the trial court upon
the law of manslaughter was full and cor
rect. That portion of the charge on this
issue which defines cooling time" had no
application to the facts of the case, but
it could not possibly have confused or
mislead the jury.
81 There were but two real issues pres
ented by the evidence.
The theory of the State characterized
| the killing as murder in the first degree.
According to this theory defendant arm
ed and concealed himself and murdered
his unsuspecting victim in cold blood.
According to defendants theory he was
actuated in the killing by passion engen-
| dered on account of an insult offered by
deceased to his wife.
| The Jury determined the issue against
defendant, and, under the evidence, their
conclusion was correct. Defendant be,
sides preparing himself, lay in wait fol
his victim, doubtless during all the hours
of the night, knowing that he would make
his appearance at the barn in the early
morning. He took advantage of deceased
and slew and robbed him. Instead OF
then standing up before the world and
avowing his deed. he concealed his iden
tity and ANONYMOUSLY sought safety il
! flight. Such conduct was that of an as
| cip ncyt a. M a m
the purity of his family.
The judgment is affirmed. Opinion by
Hurt, 7. j.
Joe Snodgrass VS.. The State: Conviction
for seduction of one Annie Kemp, appeal
ed from Jack county.
% The court erred in allowing Mrs
Kemp, the mother of the prosecutriX, tC
| testify, that, at about the time of the
alleged seduction, she regarded defend
| amt as her fguture sOn-in-law on account
of his attention to her daughter. The
promise to marry is an essential element
of the Offense. The jury might have tax
en- this Testimony of Mrs. Kemp as cor
roborrating that of her daughter on this
issue. The evidence of Mrs. Kemp was
the mere expression of an opinion anC
| therefore not admissible.
! (2) The evidence of Annie Kemp coult
| not Justify a conviction unless corrobOr
y! ated. Her evidence as Ito the fact o
carnal knowledge was corroborated bu
that as to the promise of marriage, was
| not.
The Judgment is reversed and the cause
remanded. Opinion by Hurt, p. j.
/ w. ]. Stewart VS.. The State; convic
ton or robbery; from Denton county.
| III The circumstances of the takin
establish beyond a reasonable doubt tina
such taking was without the consent o
the Joint owners of the property; and j
was not necessary for the State to ca
each of the joint owners to prove thi
fact
! (2) 1t is not necessary to discuss tn
other errors assigned as they are all dis
posed of in the decision of Williams vs.
/ The State. (RepOrted below The jude
ment is affirmed Opinion by Hendel
son, j.
| P. E. Williams VS.. The State; convic
ton for robbery; from Denton county.
The indictment alleges that defendan
did unlawfully threaten to kill one Henr
Seltz if the said Seltz did not then an
there pay him $500 or give him a chez
therefor; and that the said Seltz was b
said threat induced to deliver to sal
defendant a check for $500. The chez
is set out in full in the Indictment.
Il ~ The appellant contends that tn
prosecutor agreed to pay his mother-ir
| law, Mrs. Stewart, $500; that he wen
, with Mrs. Stewart, on the occasion Q
, the alleged robbery, for the purpose q
collecting this money, and that no rod
; berry was contemplated or in fact %
Cured.
; The theory of the defense was, tina
J the prosecutor had agreed to pay Mr.
; Stewart the money in consideration tha
she would refrain from making publ
, certain indecent proposals that he ha
tbe sum agreed '1 mon and and pr rI
poy the balance; that he did not do SC
and that she got her son-in-law and wer
to the Clubhouse, where the prosecute
; was at work, for the purpose Of collectin
said amount.