Case Name: Thomas P. Thompson v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 25 Supp. Tex. 395
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas P. Thompson v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 25 Supp.
Pages: 395–398

Head Matter:
Thomas P. Thompson v. The State.
The 9th section of the bill of rights declares, that “All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great; but this provision shall not be so construed as to prohibit bail, after indictment found, upon an examination of a judge of the Supreme or District Court, upon the return of a writ of habeas corpus, returnable in the county where the offense is committed.” (Paschal’s Dig., p. 48, | 9, Note 1C4.) The question upon this section is, whether the killing was premeditated and deliberate.
When the decree had been changed, no notice was taken of the fact, that the habeas corpus was not “returnable in the county where the offense was committed.”
Appeal from Williamson. The case was tried before Hon. Edward H. Vontress, one of the district judges.
Thomas P. Thompson was indicted for murder in the first degree, in the District Court of Bell county. The venue was changed to Williamson county. The accused sued out a' writ of habeas corpus, in which he prayed to be allowed to give bail. The sheriff returned the order of commitment which accompanied the prisoner from Bell county. In the order changing the venue, it appeared that there had been a mis-trial before Charles S. West, Esq., special judge, and that the judge of Bell county was disqualified from trying the case.
The accused came to the field of the deceased, where Elias P. Dyches, the son of deceased, was “ tying up fodder.” Thompson complained that his hogs had been dogged in Dyches’ field. The deceased was at the house with his sick wife. He walked out to the field' where Thompson was talking very loud to his son. When Dyches came’ near, Thompson said his feelings were much hurt at his hogs having been dogged. Dyches remarked, that he had notified Thompson to keep his hogs -up. Thompson then swore that he would shoot all the dogs on the place, (three witnesses said “ dogs and people,”) and in his passion he cocked his gun. E. P. Dyches, the son, from the other side of the fence, made a pass or push at the infuriated man with a fence rail, grazed his head and ear, and knocked off his hat; whereat he turned upon the father and fired. One shot entered the arm of the deceased, (he had thrown up his hand to turn off the gun,) and several entered his side. The deceased walked to the house, where he told his wife how it occurred. He afterwards told several other persons, always giving the same version of the affair. He lay there three or four days, and then died. E. P. Dyches admitted, that in “jobbing” the pole at the accused, which was a fence pole, eight feet long, he knocked off Thompson’s hat, and grazed his head. But he said that Thompson had come with his gun half-cocked across his lap, and was raising it to Ms shoulder when the witness struck at him. Bingham, the son-in-law of the deceased, was coming to the muss with a gun, at the distance of one hundred and fifty yards, (the witness did not see him until after the shooting.) As soon as Thompson fired he galloped away, and left the country for several years. The deceased had said to his wife, that Thompson bursted a cap at his son, E. P. Dyches; but the son had no recollection of this. Brngham said that Dyches first covered the son with Ms gun, and that the horse of the accused moved when E. P. Dyches “jobbed” at him. The dogs had been worrying Thompson’s hogs in the field; the parties had been friends up to that time; the deceased was unarmed; his son was angry because Thompson had his gun. .The language of Thompson was certainly passionate and provoking, and his threat, “Damn you, I will shoot every dog on the place, and you too,” Was loud, and immediately preceded the firing at Dyches. The threat was heard by the sick wife two hundred and five yards distant, and by Bingham one hundred and fifty-one yards distant. «Bingham was one hundred and fifty-one yards distant when the firing occurred. He heard Thompson’s loud language and threats. Dyches, the deceased, stated repeatedly that Thompson had leveled his gun at the son; and that the deceased only went out to prevent a difficulty between Thompson and his son. The deceased had had “ a spell of sickness” at the time, and was very unwell. The founda- ■ tion having been' laid, and E. P. Dyches having denied it, a woman swore that, immediately after the occurrence, E. P. Dyches told her that he had “jobbed” at Thompson, and that his father had pulled up a stake. But this last statement was unsupported as a fact. Thompson had ridden a few miles to a doctor, who was not a surgeon, and sent him to the wounded man; two surgeons were afterwards obtained. It seems to have been in the line of the defense to prove that,the man might have died of the sickness, and not of the wound. The evidence was voluminous, but the foregoing is the substance. Judge Von.tress having refused bail, Thompson appealed, under the 74th article of the Code, (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3220.) The facts are given. As a precedent, it is only valuable to establish, that the court might, believe that the homicide was only ?• murder in the second degree, or else manslaughter.
JE. JB. Turner, for appellant,
discussed the whole law of homicide, and the facts of the case. He cited the law of 1848, prior to the Code, (Hart., Art. 2515,) and compared it with the Penal Code, Art. 608, to establish that by either definition there was not such “premeditated and deliberate killing,” or “ express malice,” as to make the offense murder in the first degree; and he cited Atkinson v. The State, 20 Tex., 522. He offset the prisoner’s going to complain of the dogs, with double-barreled cocked gun in hand, with the fact that up to that morning the parties had been friends, and the constitutional right and general custom to keep and bear arms. He also insisted that the words of Thompson, “My feelings are hurt about my hogs being dogged,” were conciliatory, and that the quarrel grew up without any premeditation. He also attached importance to the fact, that the offensive dogs were present, and had saluted Thompson with barking at him at the distance of thirty or forty yards, and hence that the threats of extermination were really confined to ‘these enemies of the swine. He urged this view from the statement of E. P. Dyches, whose account of the threat confined it to the clogs, while the wife, at two hundred and five yards’ distant, and Bingham, at one hundred and fifty-one yards’ distant, and all the accounts of the deceased, applied the awful cursing to the men and dogs. Then as to the immediate shooting, he mixed up the threat to the dogs, the “jobbing” with the fence pole, the fact that the ear of the prisoner was injured; and from these he deduced the “ grand passion ” which took the case out of the classification of murder in the first degree. He also argued, that going for a physician by Thompson was a circumstance to prove want of malice.
Hancock ¿f*.West supported the same views.

Opinion:
Egberts, J.
—The question in this case, upon which the right to be admitted to bail depends, is, whether the killing was premeditated and deliberate. The facts, as presented in the transcript, do not make a case in which the "proof is evident or presumption great" upon that point. The prisoner will therefore be admitted to bail, upon his entering into bond, with sufficient sureties, in the sum of $10,000. (See Atkinson v. The State, 20 Tex., 522.)
Ordered accordingly.