50 Iowa 157 | Iowa | 1878
Mary Hickock testified as follows: “Hudson, wife and me took supper together. Hudson said to Chet Hickock and me, .then, if we saw Olay to send him to him. He said he would get money for Hickock, but it wouldn’t do to borrow money, ■and he hadn’t got any money — hadn’t got much money. He said they wouldn’t catch Mr. Hickock if he could see him and give him some money. He said he would get the money, and if we saw him to send it to him — get some money soon as he could.” The defendant H. C. Hickock testified that after he and Bailey waived examination he and defendant walked home together, and the following conversation occurred : “I says to him, ‘We have got into it, and the best, thing is to get out of it.’ He said, ‘Yes, I will do all I can.’ I told him if I had the money I should have gone away. He said he could not get the money without being suspicioned, any more than what he did send. He sent me two cíollars and forty-five cents. He gave it to my brother. My wife gave it to me.” If the money was furnished to assist the defendant Hickock in getting away, evidence of the fact would not be immaterial or irrelevant. From the testimony subsequently admitted the jury might, at least, find that the money was furnished for that purpose. We think there was no error in the admission of this evidence.
III. The witness, C. B. Hickock, was asked this question: “State whether or not Hudson told you, in words or in substance, that they were after Clay, or that he knew they were after Clay.” The witness answered as follows: “Yes, sir;
IY. This same witness testified as follows : “I talked with * Hudson coming from Rockford, after he was arrested and held to answer on Monday. * * * * We talked mostly about settling it up if it could be settled. Hudson said he would like to have it settled, and would like to have me see Hickman; he could do nothing with Hickman.” The witness was then asked: “Well, how did Mr. Hudson appear?” The defendant objected to the question as incompetent. The objeetion was overruled. The witness answered: “I don’t know. He appeared as if he wanted to settle it up; wanted to fix it up if it could be fixed.” The defendant moved to strike out the answer on the ground that it is an opinion of the witness. The court overruled the motion, and defendant excepted. The witness was further asked: “How did he look? How did he act that day?” The defendant objected on the ground that it is calling for the opinion of the witness, and is immaterial and irrelevant. The objection was overruled, and the witness answered: “Well, he looked as if he felt pretty bad.” These rulings are assigned as error. There could have been no prejudice to the defendant in permitting the witness to state that he appeared as if he wanted to settle it up, after the witness had directly testified to the fact that defendant said he would'like to have it settled, and wanted the witness to see Hickman. We think, also, that there could have been no prejudice to the defendant in-
Y. L. S. How was introduced as a' witness for the State, and testified to a conversation which he had with defendant at Marble Rock, in which he says the defendant stated that the first he heard about the stealing of the wheat was a few moments before, when Johnson told him down street. In cross-examination this witness was asked what relation he is to Bailey. This was objected to as immaterial, and the objection was sustained. This action is assigned as error. While the question might, without any impropriety or error, have been permitted to be answered, still we are not able to see that any prejudice could have been sustained by the defendant by the rejection of it.
he is less guilty than the party on trial; that no order of court has been asked or made that he be received as a witness against the defendant; and that no evidence lias yet been offered in the case tending to connect the defendant Hudson with the commission of the offense. The overruling of this objection is urged as error. Appellant relies upon Ray v. Ray, 1 G. Greene, 316. The doctrine of this case cannot now be regarded as the law in this State. Section 3636 of the Code provides that “every human being of sufficient capacity to understand the obligation of an oath is a competent witness in all cases, both civil and criminal, except as herein otherwise declared.” As to the objection that no evidence had been introduced tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, it is sufficient to say that a party, under the direction of the court, may select the order in which he will introduce his testimony.
YII. The defendant Plickoek testified that, on the night of
In the further progress of the examination of this witness he was asked: “What was said there, at the house of Mr. Hudson, that night you started to go out to do this work?” The defendant objected on the ground that the proposed evidence is immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent. The objection was overruled. The witness answered: “In the first place she wanted to know if I was going to do what I intended to do. That was before she offered me the stockings. I told her ‘Yes.’ She says, ‘You want to be careful.’ My woman speaks up and says, ‘ What are you going to do ? ’ Mrs. Hudson told her there was a man out there going to take tire wheat. I was going out to watch. My woman told me not to do it. I told her when I went out, I says, ‘I won’t.’ ”
Erom this testimony, which had before been introduced without objection, the jury might, at least, find that Mrs. Hudson was engaged with the defendants m the purpose of stealing the wheat, and that she was furthering, aiding and abetting the common design. If she was thus engaged her acts and declarations became, in contemplation of law, the acts and declarations of the defendant, and they are admissible in evidence against him. This view disposes, also, of the eleventh and twelfth assignments of error.
VIII. The defendant, upon cross-examination, asked of the witness H. C. Hickock a number of questions relating to
IX. Several questions were excluded which were asked the witness Mrs. G. B. Hickock, tending to show her interest in and sympathy for her brother-in-law, the defendant H. C.. Hickock. In the exercise of judicial discretion these questions might, without error, have been admitted; and yet we cannot say that, for the exclusion of them, the case should be reversed. The jury would hardly be authorized to conclude that the witness was prejudiced against the defendant on trial, from the fact that she was interested in and sympathized with his co-defendant. The proposed evidence would not have been sufficient to show that the witness was an accomplice in the commission of the crime. This disposes, also, of the sixteenth assignment of error.
X. Mrs. Hudson was introduced by the defendant, and asked the following question: “State whether you had any knowledge, or had ever heard at any time, that your husband had harnessed up his team, the Sunday night before, to take this wheat.” Upon the objection of the State this question was excluded. Appellant insists that this interrogatory was proper for the purpose of showing that Mrs. Hudson was not a co-conspirator, and had no knowledge of any guilty acts of her husband, and to show absence of knowledge of a matter that the witnesses of the State swore she conversed about.' The
XI. The instructions asked by the defendant, so far as applicable and proper, are sufficiently embodied in the instructions given. The charge of the court is very full and fair, covering every phase of the case, and is, so far as we can discover from the argument presented by appellant, without error.
XII. The evidence is conflicting. There is not such a want of evidence to support the verdict as would warrant our disturbing it.
4.FFIRMEB.