MAN KILLS DRY RAIDER WHILE WIVES BATTLE
Deputy Fatally Wounded by Filling Station Operator at Roosevelt, Okla.
WOMEN IN HOSPITAL
Slayer Surrenders After Pursuit by 200 Possemen Aided by Bloodhounds
Miami Daily News-Record 6-11-1930 Page 1
HOBART, Okla, June 11--(AP)--While their wives engage in a fight, a Kiowa county deputy sheriff and the operator of a filling station being raided for liquor shot it out at Roosevelt, Okla. last night. W. H. Humble, the deputy, is dead from gunshot wounds, and Sam Allen, the filling station man, is under guard in the county jail.
Wives of both men were in a Hobart hospital being treated for injuries inflicted during their encounter.
Humble, accompanied by his wife, was
said to have gone to Roosevelt to raid the filling station. The argument started
as soon as Humble explained his mission. Allen is said to have fired three
shots which resulted in Humble's death about two hours later.
Allen escaped, pursued by a posse of 100 men which went from Hobart, taking bloodhounds from the Granite reforatory. He surrendered later to county officers.
The county attorney's office announced
that a murder charge was being prepared against Allen and would be filed.
Allen v State
6 P.2d 14
52 Okl.Cr. 437
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Cite as: 1931 OK CR, 52 Okl.Cr. 437-442, 6 P.2d 14
1. Homicide /Conviction for Manslaughter Sustained. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment.
2. Same. The instructions of the court correctly stated the law applicable to the facts in the case.
3. Same. There are no errors in the record sufficient to warrant a reversal.
Appeal from District Court, Kiowa County; E.L. Mitchell, Judge.
Sam Allen was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
R.P. Montgomery, E.V. Rakestraw, and James H. Mathers, for plaintiff in error.
J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., for the State.
DAVENPORT, P.J. The plaintiff in error, hereinafter called the defendant, was by information jointly charged with Jeanette Allen, of the murder of W.H. Humble, was tried separately, convicted, and sentenced by the court to serve a term of 20 years in the state penitentiary. Motion for new trial was filed, considered, overruled, exceptions saved, and defendant appeals.
The testimony on behalf of the state, in substance, shows that the defendant in this case was engaged in operating a filling station, and living with his family in the rear of the building, in the town of Roosevelt, Okla.; that W.H. Humble was deputy sheriff of Kiowa county, and lived in the town of Roosevelt, Okla.; prior to the 10th day of June, 1930, the deceased, W.H. Humble, had searched the defendant's place of business for intoxicating liquors.
The testimony further tends to show that the deceased and defendant were not on friendly terms. On the afternoon of June 10, 1930, the deceased and his wife had driven down by the place of business of the defendant and on down to the ball park where some parties had engaged in ball practice. As the deceased and his wife returned from the ball park, the testimony of Mrs. Humble tends to show that the wife of the defendant, Mrs. Allen, was out in front of the filling station; that Mrs. Allen called to the deceased and had him stop his car and told him that Sam wanted to see him, meaning Sam Allen, the defendant in this case; the deceased got out of his car and went into the place of business of defendant, and within a few seconds the wife of the deceased heard three shots; she got out of the car and started to go into the building, and Mrs. Allen engaged her in a fight; she tried to get away, and Mrs. Allen pursued her; after the shooting was over, the defendant came out and called to his wife to quit fighting Mrs. Humble.
When the defendant came out of his place of business, parties came up and went in and found the deceased had been fatally wounded, and afterwards died from the effects of the wounds inflicted by the defendant.
The defendant called several witnesses,
who testified as to the length of time Mrs. Allen had been at home before
the trouble, for the purpose of contradicting Mrs. Humble's statement that
Mrs. Allen was at home as they passed going to the ball park, and also to
show the deceased was a quarrelsome, troublesome, and dangerous man. The testimony
of the defendant tends to show that he had been at his place of business during,
the entire day; that his wife and children had been to his mother's, about
a mile away, and had only returned a few minutes before the trouble; that,
at the time the deceased drove up to the place of business of the defendant,
the defendant was in the rear room lying on a cot with the children playing
around and over him; that the wife of the defendant was in the front room
with her baby in her arms.
The testimony of the defendant further shows that the deceased came into the room and pushed Mrs. Allen down with her baby in her arm, and when he saw this he asked the deceased what he meant by what he was doing, and that when he did so the deceased made a movement as if to get his gun, and he shot the deceased in his right arm so he could not get his gun; the deceased then tried to get his gun with his left hand, and he shot him again; that he did not intend to kill the deceased and only shot to save his life; the defendant knew the deceased was an officer and was always armed.
There was considerable testimony introduced upon the question of the length of time the deceased and defendant had lived in Roosevelt, and to the fact that the defendant's place of business had been searched by the officers for intoxicating liquor, which was immaterial for the purpose of presenting the facts in this case, and only tended to make the record more voluminous. It was also denied by the defendant that his wife was out in front of the place of business when the deceased and his wife drove up to the place of business of the defendant.
The defendant has assigned several errors alleged to have been committed in the trial of his case, which he insists are sufficient to warrant a reversal.
It is urged by the defendant that over
his objection the state committed prejudicial error in the direct examination
and cross-examination of the witnesses, and especially does the defendant
complain of the admission, over his objections, of the acts of Mrs. Allen
and the statements she is alleged to have made out of the presence and hearing
of the defendant. The defendant insists that the court erred in admitting
the testimony of the fight between Mrs. Humble, the wife of the deceased,
and Mrs. Allen, the wife of the defendant, which was a separate and independent
fight, away from the presence, hearing, and sight of both the deceased and
defendant. Mrs. Allen was jointly informed against with the defendant, and
testimony with reference to what took place between Mrs. Humble and Mrs. Allen seems to have been admitted by the court on the theory that it was all one transaction, and that Mrs. Allen was trying to prevent the wife of the deceased from going to his assistance.
We do not think the admission of this testimony sufficient to warrant a reversal of this case. While the state did not introduce any positive testimony tending to show a conspiracy between the defendant's wife and the defendant, there is testimony tending to show that Mrs. Allen stopped the deceased and told him her husband wished to see him, and that the deceased got out of his car and went into the building where he was killed. On this question there is a conflict between the testimony of Mrs. Humble and the defendant's testimony. From the time the deceased drove up to the place of business of the defendant there is a sharp conflict in the testimony as to what took place up to the time of the shooting of the deceased by the defendant. The defendant, being the only eyewitness to the shooting, insists that he only shot for the purpose of protecting his life or receiving great bodily harm. The conflict in the testimony was settled by the jury; the jury being the exclusive judges of the weight of the evidence and the credit it would give to the statement of the witnesses.
It is further urged by the defendant
that the defendant was tried in an unfriendly atmosphere, that the deceased
was an officer of the court, and that all the officers of the court were prejudiced
against him. If this were true, the defendant should have exercised his statutory
rights and filed a motion for a change of venue. There is nothing in the record
to show that the trial court, or any of the officers of the court, in any
way whatever tried to influence the verdict of the jury.
The instructions of the court have been carefully examined, and we hold that, taken in their entirety, they correctly state the law applicable to the facts in the case. We hold further that the defendant was accorded a fair and impartial trial; that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict; that there are no errors in the record possessing sufficient merit to warrant a reversal.
The judgment is affirmed.
EDWARDS and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.
dated 6-28-2010This information compiled, prepared and submitted to this site by Ethel Taylorand remains the property of the submitter