25 Mo. 205 | Mo. | 1857
delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant, Edward D. Worrell, was indicted with William H. Bruff for the murder of Bazil H. Gordon, at the May term of the Circuit Court of Warren county, A. D. 1856. The defendants were arraigned and pleaded “not guilty” to the indictment, and on their petition the venue was changed from the Circuit Court of Warren county to the Circuit Court of Franklin county — the petitioners alleging, in their application for the change, that they believed the inhabitants of the entire judicial circuit (of which Warren county composed a part) are so prejudiced against the defendants that a fair trial can not be had in the same. At the September term of the Franklin Circuit Court, A. D. 1856, the case was called and the trial was postponed to a special adjourned term of said court, to be held on the 19th day of January, A. D. 1857. At the special adjourned term of said Franklin Circuit Court, held on the 19th day of January, 1857, the parties appeared — the defendants had severed in their trials — and the defendant, Worrell, moved for a continuance of the cause; filed his own and other affidavits in support of his motion, which motion being overruled he saved the point by his bill of exceptions. A trial was then had,
The counsel for the prisoner relies upon the following points for a reversal of the judgment in this case. 1st. That the Franklin Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, the order of removal by the Warren Circuit Court being illegal and insufficient to take away the jurisdiction of the latter court. 2d. The court erred in overruling the application for a continuance and in forcing the defendant to trial. 3d. Yariance between the murder as charged in the indictment, and the murder (if any) made out in the proof. 4th. The court erred in refusing the instruction asked by defendant. 5th. The evidence, being purely circumstantial, was not legally sufficient to establish the crime charged, and that this is a question for this court.
We have carefully examined the questions raised by the several points relied on by the counsel, and will state the re-suit of our conclusions in regard thereto; not in the order as presented by the counsel and here laid down, but nevertheless we shall notice the various propositions in our own way. We begin with the first proposition, the change of venue. By our statute concerning “Practice in Criminal Cases,” (art. 5,) the change of venue in such cases is regulated. It may not be improper here to cite several of the sections of this article. “ Sec. 15. Whenever any indictment or prose
The record before us shows the following petition filed by the defendants for a change of venue:
“ State of Missouri v. Edward D. Worrell and Wiliam H. Bruff. Indictment for murder. Warren Circuit Court — Spring term, 1856. Edward D. Worrell and William H. Bruff upon their oaths state, that they believe the inhabitants of this entire judicial circuit are so prejudiced against the defendants that a fair tidal can not be had in the same;
Now under the 18th, 19th and 20th sections above recited the Circuit Court of Warren county was bound to change the venue; it had no discretion about the matter. The law pointed put the mode in which it should appear that the inhabitant's of the entire judicial circuit were so prejudiced against the defendants that a fair trial could not be had therein. It was by the petition of the defendants, under their oath, setting forth the facts and the allegations. Here we see that all that was necessary under the act in regard to the petition was done. The record then shows the following entry : “ State of Missouri vs. Edward D. Worrell and William H. Bruff. Indictment for murder. Now here said defendants file their petition for a change of venue in this cause, which is granted. It is therefore ordered by the court that the venue of this cause be changed to the county of Franklin in this state, and that the clerk of this county make out a full transcript of the record and proceedings in this cause, including this order, and transmit the same duly certified, together with the original papers filed and now forming a part of the record, to the clerk of the Circuit Court of said county of Franklin.” The order omits to specify the cause of removal as mentioned in the 22d section. Tins omission the counsel for the prisoner contends is fatal; that the order changing the venue, without specifying the cause of removal, is so fatally defective as to be incapable of transferring the jurisdiction from the Circuit Court of Warren county to the Circuit Court of Franklin' comity, and hence the Circuit Court of Franklin county had no authority to proceed to judgment against the prisoner. We do not concur with the counsel in these views. Where the change of venue is upon the application of the party defendant himself, the cause will always appear upon the record. The petition and order of removal are parts of the record, made so by statute, and be
We will nest notice the point in respect to the variance between the murder as charged in the indictment and the proof given in evidence. The indictment charges that the prisoners feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and of their malice aforethought did make an assault on Gordon, and that Worrell, with a pistol, did feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, premeditatedly, and of his malice aforethought, shoot Gordon in the back part of the head. The indictment is a formal and correct one under our statute for murder; that is, it charges the murder to have been done wilfully, deliberately a/nd premeditatedly. It describes the wound, and avers the instrument with which the murder was perpetrated, and the manner of its perpetration. It is a good indictment for murder in the first degree. The proof was sufficient to support the charge as will hereafter be seen. But as by the proof the motive for the deed plainly appears to have been for the purpose of robbing the deceased, the counsel for the prisoner contends that as the robbery was the principal matter, and the act of killing but the incident, the indictment should have alleged that the murder was committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate the robbery. Now it is
In order to a proper understanding of the fourth point on the part of the defence, we shall be compelled to notice the testimony on behalf of the State, and also that for the prisoner. When this is carefully examined, the remaining points, the second and the fifth, will be easily disposed of.
The testimony of Robert Walker is as follows: I knew Gordon for near twenty years ; the most of that time he has been with me. I am chief engineer of the Missouri railroad. Early in January, 1856, Mr. Sturgeon and myself started along the road, and he being my assistant I directed him to accompany us; the weather was cold. I purchased a pair of gloves of the description I now use. I directed Mr. Gordon to purchase a pair like them, which he did, as I saw them on his hands on the evening of Sunday, 13th January, 1856. We left for St. Charles, Mr. Sturgeon and myself in the cars, and Mr. Gordon on horseback. We staid at St. Charles at the house of E. L. Wentze. Next morning we started — Mr.
Warren Y. Stewart, being duly sworn, stated: He lives in Warrenton, and lived there eighteen years ; knew Gordon ;
Henry Ordelheite’s testimony. I reside in Warren, six miles east from Warrenton, on St. Charles road; was present when the body of Gordon was found. It was lying in a ditch in the old road, made by the wash of the road. We searched through the thicket. The snow about two feet deep ; could discover nothing there. We examined the gully and found the body. There was three or four feet of snow over the body. Davis took a hoe to clear out the ditch, and passed over the body without discovering any thing, there being some brush sticking out of the snow, and we concluded to take out the brush, and then found the body. Mrs. Stevenson had had some wood cut close by, and the limbs left were thrown in over Gordon. There was but little snow under the body. The body lay on the back, one arm under it. The face looked as if it had been stamped by a foot, and the nose turned to one side of the face. Stewart came soon after we discovered the body. The body was about twelve or thirteen steps from the spot where the blood was found. The ditch was in some places two and a half feet wide, and others seven feet wide. The body was found about one mile east of my house, and about twenty-five feet north of the travelled track.
James Ferguson’s testimony. I reside in Montgomery county, Mo., about thirteen miles east of Danville, on Boons-lick road. Mr. Gordon, Mr. Worrell and Bruff were at my house. I had been boarding one of the engineers. Gordon had stopped and stayed all night with me on his way up. They rode up, and Gordon spoke to me, but did not get down while we were talking. I bought a pony of Mr. Worrell, and he rode inside the yard to receive his pay; it was a sorrel mare. I bought the mare of Worrell as be went down the road on the 24th January, 1856. I asked him where he was going. “ To Clark county, Kentucky,” and had been to Kansas. He stated his name was May. A man came and claim
Wilson Hutchinson states he resides about four miles east of Warrenton, on Boonslick road; am a farmer and keep private entertainment; have lived in Warren about twenty-six years. In January, 1856, on 24th of month, Gordon, Worrell and Bruff came to my house; stopped and staid all night. The prisoners at the bar are the same men. They stopped and staid all night, and left next morning between seven and eight o’clock. They started down the road east. While there, and during the night, Worrell took out a pistol and loaded it. I saw Gordon’s body after it was found, about two and a half miles east of my house. On the night Gordon and the others came to my house the ground was covered with sno^, and on the morning it was snowing and very cold. When I first saw the body the snow was raked off the face, lying in the gully. When they left, Gordon went out last. The body was more than one and a half feet deep under the snow. I had passed the road many times from the time Gordon left until his body was discovered; never saw
Clay Taylor states that Doctor Briscoe, jr., is now attending lectures in St. Louis at this time; am acquainted with prisoner; reside in Warren county, and on the 25th was on my way to Warren county from St. Louis ; on the Boonslick road met Mr. Worrell about fifteen miles east of the place where the body was found, about noon. Mr. Worrell was riding a chestnut sorrel horse, as I believe. Bruff was with him, leading a brown horse and riding one of the same. Col. White, who was with me, called my attention to Worrell’s horse, and remarked, “ There was a d-d fine poor man’s horse.” The horse was a fine looking horse. . When I saw Worrell in jail on the night he was brought to St. Louis, I asked him, if he recognized me. He looked at me closely and replied, “ I think I do,” and dropped his head. I asked him if he would state when he had seen me. He said he was not certain whether it was at Warrenton or on the road this side. I then asked him if he recollected the circumstance of meeting three buggies together on the day of the unfortunate occurrence. He said he thought he did recollect it. Mr. Sturgeon, the president of the road, was with me, and asked Mr. Worrell, “ Please, state, as I am much concerned about my friend, whether he suffered or not.” He-replied, standing before us, “ He did not suffer,” and dropped his head. The answer I shall never forget. Sturgeon seemed a good deal affected. Several days afterwards I again went into jail, saw Worrell; asked him how he was. He replied, “ Tolerably well seemed low spirited. I then asked him if Gordon had suffered much after he was shot; that Mr. Gordon was a co-laborer of mine on road, and a friend. He replied, “ I can
Martin McMahon states that he saw Worrell at Christian Way’s, in St. Charles city. Way keeps a tavern or boarding-house. There was another man with him, the same I saw with him at Warrenton. Mr. Bruff being produced, he stated he is the same man I saw with Worrell at Way’s. They staid all night at Way’s ; had three horses with them ; left next morning ; on next morning I proposed to buy one of the horses — Bruff’s—a bay horse. About this time a negro came across the street, and asked Mr. Worrell if he had bought that horse, the chestnut sorrel, from Mr. Gordon. He replied, “ no that he had brought down the horse from up the country. [Cross-examined]. Worrell and Bruff got their supper at the usual supper time. After Worrell haét finished his supper he went into the kitchen and bar-room, being same room, and sat by the stove; the kitchen is the sitting room and not the cook room. They went to bed between nine and ten o’clock ; did not sleep in same room with, them; saw them again next morning when they came to> breakfast; a quarter or a half an hour after breakfast I proposed to buy one of the horses. Worrell and Bruff were sitting on horseback watering their' horses at the pump-;. Bruff
Hartwell Rickards states: I kept a tavern in St. Louis, near the corner of Broadway and Mullanphy streets. About the 26th of January, 1856, between eleven and twelve o’clock of , Saturday, prisoner and William H. Bruff came to my house and put up, and left next day at the same time. He was accompanied by William Bruff. The prisoner at the bar and Mr. Bruff — who was produced in court — are the same. They went by the names of Charles Strong and John Ross— William, I think, taking the name of Charles Strong. I asked them their names, and a young man I had in the house wrote them in a book. They had three horses — one a chestnut sorrel horse, of good appearance, and had a knot under his jaw — the others were bays. They left in the morning, saying they were going across the river. Worrell was jovial and agreeable ; started with some of the boarders, saying they were going to the theater ; they came between eleven and twelve o’clock, the usual time of breaking up the theater. [Cross-examined.] I then kept public house on Broadway; never saw Worrell before he came to my house on 26th. I asked each man his name, and they gave them as above. There was nothing peculiar in their appearance. I held no considerable connected conversation with them; think he had two watches. I am sure he had one. He
" S. H. Gould states: I reside in Yincennes, Indiana, one hundred and fifty miles from St. Louis ; saw Worrell every day from the 2d to 6th of February ; Bruff not so long; they had three horses — one a dark sorrel, one a dark bay, and the other a light bay ; the sorrel horse was of fine appearance; had a lump under his jaw, about where the curb chain would touch; showed the horse to Morgan, who is here; Signer was with him ; I purchased chestnut sorrel horse, saddle and bridle from Worrell; the other horses were also sold — the chestnut sorrel and a bay by Worrell, and another bay horse by Bruff; showed the saddle and bridle I bought with horse to Signer; the other horses were also sold in Yincennes; Worrell left on the train going east to Terre-Haute and Indianapolis ; I have sold the chestnut sorrel horse ; Worrell sold two of the horses and Bruff one; they were much jaded; the chestnut sorrel horse was bought by me for sixty-five dollars ; Worrell went by the'name of E. C. Worrell at Yin-cennes ; he entered it on the register in that way ; they had two saddles ; the saddle I bought of Worrell was a black saddle, with raised skirts, and top of pommel the blacking rubbed off; he wore a pair of military pants, black coat, a black cap, and a pair of gloves similar to the pair now in possession of Maj. Walker; he had several rings and a watch with a common cord guard; I think he sold to my father a small prismatic white seal, hung to the watch by a strip of gold. [Cross-examined.] Myself and father were keeping public hotel in Yincennes; Worrell left at six o’clock in the evening of 6th; the day they arrived at my house was Satur
Isaac B. Morgan states: I was in Vincennes on the 15th February last; I went in pursuit of my horse; saw S. H. Gould; he told me had bought a horse, and to go to the stable and pick him out; saw a sorrel horse, the same I let Mr. Gordon have on the 13th January ; I also found a saddle and bridle which I put on the horse when he was lent to Mr. Gordon when he went up the line of N. M. railroad ; am sure the horse was mine ; a chestnut sorrel horse, fifteen and a, half hands high, a small star in his forehead, and some white on his nose ; had a small wen on the under part of the jaw, and some white hairs, on the root of his tail; the last witness is the same man who showed me the horse at Vincennes ; the saddle belonged to Mr. Signer ; I once rode the saddle carrying some tools carried on the pommel; the
George H. Signer. I know the horse and saddle used by Gordon on January last; was a chestnut sorrel horse, and a black English tree saddle; I loaned it to Gordon to go up the road; saw the same saddle in Vincennes in possession of Mr. Gould ; the same day Mr. Worrell’s father came to St. Louis ; I was more certain about the bridle. Saw the horse also in Mr. Gould’s possession, and am confident it was the same horse Morgan lent to Gordon. [Cross-examined.] The reins of the bridle were of fine web, and a yellow brow band, with an old snaffle bit, the gag bit first used being taken off.
Erasmus E. L. Wentze states: I saw prisoner first in Dover, Delaware ; saw him first 20th February, 1856; met him in the street; next morning, about two o’clock, A. M., saw him again ; he came to the track of a railroad in company with Capt. Cozens, where I was standing near a hand car ; we all got on the hand car — Cozens, myself, Worrell, with two others; Cozens put. a pair of handcuffs on Worrell at this point; Capt. Cozens gave me a watch which I immediately recognized as the same Mr. Gordon wore; I had had it in my hands several times, and compared watches with him at my house in St. Charles ; Gordon had staid at my house twelve nights at least, and I have been much with him on the line of road ; Gordon was principal assistant engineer, and I was division engineer ; I reported to Gordon ; I told Capt. Cozens I knew it to be Gordon’s watch ; we left Dover on the hand car, and went — I think the name of the town was Smyrna; we stopped there in a small depdt building to wait for the train ; while there, the watch was again mentioned; I again told Cozens, in presence of Worrell, that I was still convinced it was Gordon’s watch; that I knew it to be his; Worrell
Oapt. Cozens states: I reside in St. Louis; was captain of police for a good many years; saw Worrell first in Dover, Delaware, in a tavern ; Mr. Worrell came along with me and others to railroad depOt, in Dover ; found the watch produced (being same spoken of by witnesses) in a vest pocket hanging up in a room where Worrell was sleeping; the watch was taken out of pocket by some gentlemen with me; we went down to Wentze at hand car, and I took the-watch from the gentleman and handed it to Wentze, who was at the oar; we got on the car and went down about twelve or more miles to a little town called Smyrna; went into the depdt; I asked Wentze what time it was; he handed the watch to
The defendants gave evidence as follows :
Marcus Wright: I have resided in St. Louis for about five or sis weeks to-day; knew the prisoner Worrell in Portsmouth, Ohio ; became first acquainted in the summer of 1849 or 1850 ; he was then residing there, engaged in the employment of Wm. Eldon, a dry goods merchant; don’t remember he did any thing else in particular ; never knew any thing which would be considered wrong of him; I believe, so far as I know, he was well liked ; was a member of a Baptist church at that place, and a teacher in a Sabbath school of that church; knew him from May until October or November of that year ; I left before he did ; never saw any thing of him but what was perfectly sane; seemed to conduct Sabbath school in an orderly manner; never knew of his having convulsive fits while there ; I knew he was sick of a fever ; do not know the character of fever ; saw him while sick; saw nothing but that at times he was fretful; was quite intimate with him; don’t know where he went from that place, or how long he staid there ; the next Sabbath after I arrived in St. Louis, five or six weeks ago, saw him in
James P. McGee: I reside at present in St. Louis, and since last September; before that time in Baltimore city; know the prisoner; first saw him at Yincennes last winter at railroad depát; next time in cars; I stopped in Yincen-nes from Tuesday until Wednesday evening ; my wife in company; was then going to Baltimore; Mr. Worrell, understanding I was going to Baltimore, introduced himself to me; he told me that he understood I was going to Baltimore ; he asked me whether I was going by way of Cincinnati or by Pittsburgh ; I told him I had taken ticket up by way of Crestline and Pittsburgh; he then said he had calculated on going by way of Cincinnati; he asked me if that was the most direct route; I told him I judged so from their selling through tickets; he said if that was so he would alter his course and go with me, as he was going to Baltimore; this was in the depdt office and during the time we were waiting for evening train; the train did not go up until the afternoon of next day; returned to the Harrison house and staid all night; he was dressed in a brown cloth cap, a dark overcoat, and dark colored pants; he had also a black close frock coat; he had a vest chain of a watch and several rings on his fingers; he had mustache and whiskers of the goatee style, very long — unusually long. We waited at depfit on Tuesday evening until nine or ten o’clock, waiting for the evening
Otis M. Messick states: I belong to the army, and my headquarters is Fort Leavenworth; am now in the recruiting service, and since 25th October under orders of Lieutenant Church; my grade is that of corporal; have been in the army two years next July; part of that time and last fall a year ago was out on the plains ; last April was ordered to Kansas and during intervening winter was at Fort; have some slight acquaintance with Worrell; know him by sight; my company is “0,” Captain Thomas J. Wood; Worrell belonged to “H” Company, Captain Newby;' the prisoner was orderly sergeant of Newby’s company ; during the winter of 1855 and 1856,1 think ten companies, comprising a full regiment, were there ; saw Worrell while on the plains ; knew who he was ; also at the fort after our return ; there are generally two companies put in same building ; Company B and Company H occupied the same building, but not same rooms; Worrell, so far as I heard of him, was a man of good standing and character, or he could not hold the position he did; he deserted the fort during the winter spoken of; became corporal in April last; was at first a private ; I stood sentinel a great many times during -the winter spoken of; at one time while on post, and had orders to permit no one to pass without the countersign, and after the signal was given for lights to bo blown out in quarters and go to bed; I had a loaded cavalry carbine and a sabre. Worrell came towards my post; I hailed him by demanding “who come’s there ?” he answered, “a ’friend I replied, “ halt, friend he continued to advance on me, and.said, “good evening, sentinel.” I took the responsibility on myself not to shoot him, as I did not wish to do so ; was not reported ; it was my duty, after commanding him to halt, to fire on him; this was my orders ; was not in-
Edward Lane states : I belong to the army of the United States; head-quarters at Fort Leavenworth; am a private, and now on business in the subsistence department; joined the army twelve months prior to last August; enlisted at Columbus, Ohio ; have been at Leavenworth, Kearney, Jefferson Barracks and back again to Leavenworth; have been most of time at Leavenworth; belong to first regiment of cavalry, composed of ten companies ; know the prisoner ; first saw him at Columbus in August, 1855, one or two days ; he was then in the army ; had just enlisted and was acting as non-commissioned officer; he belonged to Company H, first cavalry, Edw. B. Newby, captain ; knew him from that time to January, 1856, when he left Fort Leavenworth; Wor-rell arrived at Fort Leavenworth about the middle of August, 1855 ; I was at that time in the same service as now, acting as clerk in the subsistence department; Worrell bore a very good character in the army so far as I ever heard ; Worrell
Dr. Edward H. Worrell states: He is a teacher, and, in connection with his wife, 'conducted a female academy, and more recently a male academy ; have been a physician, and am the father of prisoner ; have observed considerable departure from a sound judgment in early life in my son to an extent as to excite apprehensions for the consequence; my wife and myself have frequently talked about it; he has been subject to deliria during his whole life ; this is not insanity, but near of kin to it. In 1854, near Baltimore, my son was with me and my wife visiting a friend — in the evening we were called to tea — in the summer; Edward had been to the city, and just about that time arrived; complained of being weary and tired; he declined to take tea, - and sit down to refresh himself; after a while one of his aunts went out to him and came running back with great-and stated to his mother that Edward was standing by a tree beating his head against it, and using such actions as indicated that he was crazy; myself and wife, with others, went out and we found him raving and tearing in convulsions ; we took hold of him, Mr. Bose, a strong man, and myself with others; it took us all to hold him ; Bose thought he was trying to get a knife and was apprehensive; saw him making indications of getting his knife, but nobody knew for what; he had a wild stare and seemed like a wild man; after a while and after a considerable struggle we succeeded in getting him down ; the paroxysm was still on him; throwing his limbs about him violently, muttering to himself, but don’t now remember what; it may have been muttering noise. We watched him all night, but he was not violent all night; we kept him down, and after a while he fell asleep as if exhausted — in a kind of stupor; a strong impression was made in the family in consequence; he had been to town that day as usual when he wished; was temperate; there was nothing like rum about him; did not suspect him of any thing of the kind ; had no appearance of having drank any thing. He had not been with
Elizabeth Worrell states: Her son is twenty-eight years old; was born in Wilmington, Delaware; he first showed early, when four or five years old, irritability and want of self-control — less than in children of that age; was not injured in any way in head by external violence; this irritability and lack of self-control continued to grow with age. In July, 1845, during the day he had the fit, he complained of drowsiness and excitability; after dinner his uncle Robert Tose asked him to walk in city ; I persuaded him to do so, that it might make him feel better; he went and staid till late in afternoon; I was sitting in porch when he returned; I asked him how he felt; he said he felt very bad ; he sat there some time ; did not seem disposed to talk, but sleepy; he was invited to tea, which he declined; we left him lying on the porch ; we remained at tea table some time, and his aunt got up and said she would see if he would not take a cup of tea; she returned in a few moments frightened, and said he was beating his head against a tree ; we ran out; saw him rubbing his head against the tree, foaming at the mouth and tearing his hair; I asked him what was the matter; he made no answer, but stared at me as though he did not know me ; the gentlemen — Mr. Rose, Waterman and Mr. Worrell — took hold of him; I tried to pacify him ; by the time they got him into the house, my sister had a bed put down on parlor floor ; I saw him put his hands into his pocket, where he had a large knife ; I begged Mr. Rose to get it from him, as he might injure himself; they finally got him on the bed ; he struggled and tried to get up ; did get up and got to the window and tried to get out; we got him back to bed; his eyes stared wildly about, gritting his teeth, and muttering ; after a little while he seemed more composed, and I asked him if he knew me ; he made no answer, and did not seem to recognize me;
Dr. W. W. Bassett, called by the State, states: I am a practioner of medicine; resided for last two years in St. Louis, and before that in Manchester, St. Louis county, for fourteen years ; have practiced twenty-one years; have done all the county practice for two years since last October until about two months ago ; after that time only in part; it is my duty to attend the sick in jail when informed of a case; the county and state are responsible for my fees, and collected precisely as other costs; I have attended Worrell and given him prescriptions; some five or six months since, more or less, I think before the Warren
Dr. Bannister states : Am a physician; reside in St. Louis ; am physician of the city hospital; open to all diseases ; have some few lunatics; I have had a limited opportunity of observing lunatics; was one year at lunatic hospital in Philadelphia ; averaged about one hundred and eighty insane during the year; never saw insanity in the form of wild delirium result from epilepsy — always imbecility; epilepsy, from long continuance, impairs the mind and results in imbecility ; in the cases I have seen there is a gradual loss of memory, and powers of reason ; the mind becomes weak and sinks into imbecility ; it is often congenital, arising from mal-formation of the brain; an idiot is generally known by a want of expression of the eye, the form of the head, and is unable to speak; an imbecile would be readily found out in a few days’ company ; a man afflicted with imbecility, result
Beverly EL Robinson : I am an officer in the United States army; first lieutenant; now stationed at Richmond, Ya.; saw Worrell at Fort Leavenworth, in April, 1854; I was then stationed there, and until the first July, 1854; I then crossed the plains as far as Fort Union, in New Mexico, with him ; have never seen him since; we arrived at Fort Union the last of August; was on duty with him at Fort Leavenworth; I was officer of the day and the defendant corporal of the guard; saw no symptom of derangement or insanity, or derangement of the mind of any kind ; did not know or hear of his having any epileptic fits during the time; the duty of the orderly sergeant of a company is to keep the books of the company, make out all the details, call the roll, and is the most important office in the company; it is not possible for an insane man to do the duties of the office. [Cross-examined.] I now
Charles F. Clark: Resided at Fort Leavenworth; am quarter-master sergeant since May, 1855 ; joined the army in January, 1848 ; know Worrell, first in August, 1855, until 6th or 7th January, 1856 ; he deserted the evening of January 7th — also sergeant Bruff, of another company; two horses were taken at same time; I know that the horse he was riding before was left; he took another fine horse, noted for his appearance ; the horse he was in the habit of riding was in poor condition; my duties were to assist the regimental quarter-master; soon after he joined my company he was
In vain have we looked through this long detail of evidence for the basis to support the instruction here asked for by the defendant’s counsel, which is as follows: “ In determining the question whether the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree, partial insanity, if it appear in evidence, may be properly considered by the jury in determining what was the mental condition of defendant at the time of the homicide ; if the jury do not find from the evidence that the defendant was so insane as to be incapable of guilt, as explained in a previous instruction, yet if they shall believe from the evidence that, from previous epileptic fits or other cause, his mind was impaired and clouded, and incapable of deliberately, sedately, forming a fixed and settled specific design to take the life of Gordon, they ought to find him guilty of nrar-der in the second degree.” Instructions are given by the court to the jury to assist them in coming to a proper conclusion in their deliberations. The court, retaining a knowledge of the testimony as given, instructs the jury as to the law arising on the facts supposed to be in proof. The court is never required to give abstract propositions of law to the jury. The instructions must have reference to the case. There is nothing preserved in the evidence that could in the slightest degree justify the expectation on the part of the defendant’s counsel that this instruction would be given to the jury. There was nothing to warrant it, and the court very properly refused it. In looking over the charge given by the
As to the evidence not being legally sufficient to warrant the conviction of the prisoner — which is the fifth point made by his counsel in this court — we have only to say, that, from a careful examination of the whole evidence, we can not find any room to doubt the propriety of the verdict. Indeed we are unable to see how the jury could do otherwise than find the prisoner guilty of murder in the first degree. No unprejudiced mind can examine the detail of circumstances produced on the trial below, and preserved in the bill of exceptions, without coming to the conclusion, beyond a doubt, that Gordon was murdered, and that the prisoner was concerned in the murder. The jury were then justified in finding their verdict as they have done in this case. We have now examined the points in the defence, all except the second, and find none of them sufficient to authorize a reversal of the judgment below.
From the affidavit of the defendant Worrell, and the accompanying affidavit in support of his motion for a continuance, there did appear at first some grounds for the motion, and it seemed to us as if the lower court had exercised its discretion to the prejudice of the prisoner; but when we examine the affidavit and find what the prisoner expected to prove by the absent witness Davis, and the absent depositions, and now see the whole case before us, we see that the evidence could not and ought not to have the effect of changing the result of the trial; consequently he was not prejudiced by being ruled into trial. Even if the circuit court may have seemingly exercised its discretion without proper caution at first, (which we do not pretend to say was the case here,) yet when the whole case is presented before this court, and the absent testimony, and the absent witness, from what is alleged