Welch v. State

1919 OK CR 310, 185 P. 119, 16 Okla. Crim. 513, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 282
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
DecidedNovember 18, 1919
DocketNo. A-3170.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 1919 OK CR 310 (Welch v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Welch v. State, 1919 OK CR 310, 185 P. 119, 16 Okla. Crim. 513, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 282 (Okla. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

ARMSTRONG, J.

The plaintiff in error, Henry Welch, hereinafter called defendant, James Meiggs, and Louis Benge, were informed against jointly for the murder of T. W. Smoot. The defendant was tried separately, convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary at McA Jester during his natural life. To reverse the judgment rendered, he prosecutes this appeal.

' The ■ defendant, as a witness in the case, admitted that in territorial days he had been convicted of, and •served a sentence in the penitentiary for, robbery; that he fired the shot in the colored waiting room which killed the deceased; that he was marshal of Ft. Gibson, but that during the trouble in said waiting room he did not in any way attempt to exercise his authority as such marshal; and that after he shot the deceased he did not stop to see the effect of such shot, but ran out of said waiting room in pursuit of a man who was running from the said depot, who was afterwards ascertained to be Hymer; that very shortly after the said shooting, and in response to an inquiry, he made false and contradictory statements as to his knowledge of who shot the deceased; that he was sober at the time of the homicide; and that his codefendants were under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Hyaner testified that on the 4th day of March, 1917, he was railroad agent and telegraph operator employed at the depot of the Iron Mountain Railroad at Ft. Gibson, his hours of work being from 4:30 in the evening until 1 the next morning; that he remembered the killing of T. W. Smoot that night; that he and his wife, after closing the office door, which was self-locking, were leaving the depot *515 at about 12:45, and in order to do so had gone into the colored waiting room of the said depot, into which came the defendant and his two codefendants, one of whom stood at the entrance of said room; that at that time he did not know them, but has since ascertained that they were the defendant, Jim Meiggs, and Louis Benge; that Jim Meiggs approached and searched him and said, “If you have got a gun on you, or whatever you have got on you, give it to me”; that the witness replied: “Gentlemen, I have not got a cent of money, let me go”; that when searched he had upon his person a gold watch and a card case, which watch was not taken and which card case was. not gone through; that while he was being searched the defendant stood close to Meiggs, and Benge walked over to the witness’ wife and said something to her which the. witness did not understand; that the witness and wife were permitted to leave the depot and went to the McBride Building to Mr. Smoot’s room, leaving the said three men standing in the waiting room, and that they followed them; that witness and wife kept ahead of them; that, on reaching Mr. Smoot’s room, they found him preparing to go to the depot; that they informed him of what had occurred at the depot; that Mr. Smoot completed his toilet, armed himself with a shotgun, and went with the witness and his wife to the said depot; that Mr. Smoot entered the colored waiting room first, that witness followed, and that his wife ^followed him; that Mr. Smoot at the time held the gun under his arm; that Jim Meiggs, the man who had searched the witness, came into the waiting-room; that the defendant was looking from the outside into the room through the window; that Mr. Smoot said to Meiggs, “Are you the fellow that is causing this disturbance,” or “this trouble?” and Meiggs made a reply *516 which- witness did not hear; that Meiggs and Smoot went immediately to fighting; that Smoot laid down his gun on the .floor or .let it fall and that, witness • started to- assist Mr. .Smoot;- that the defendant came into the room hurriedly and joined in-the fight against Smoot; that witness tried to find something to fight with and could not, and went out to a pile of cinders and picked up two or' three finders, and returned to the room where the men were still fighting Smoot, and threw two or three cinders at Meiggs and Welch; that at this time Benge came from the door, and witness threw a cinder at him and struck him and thought he knocked him down; that he returned for more -cinders, and as he stepped out of the door heard a shot fired in the waiting room; that he got another cinder and returned to the waiting room, and saw the defendant standing there over Smoot’s dead body; that he threw at him and struck him in the face and returned to get more cinders, and looked around, and that defendant was holding his gun on him, and that witness began to run; that Meiggs hollored, “Shoot him, shoot him,” and was using profane language towards him; that the defendant followed him, and that he finally heard defendant say that he was the marshal, and witness said, “If you are the marshal, I wall stop,” and defendant advanced up to him, having his gun in his hand, and repeated that he was the marshal, and that witness replied, “You have not acted like a marshal,” and said to him, “Let’s go and hunt my wife”; that the defendant went with the witness, and that witness said to him he wondered what happened to Mr, Smoot,, that he believed he was hurt, and suggested that they go.back and see where Mr. Smoot was; that the defendant said, “You want your wife, and we will go find her”; that they went back to the McBride Building and *517 got his wife,-: and again returned to-, the depot, where a crowd; of men had then gathered; that: they went, into' the colored, waiting room- and there found Mr. Smoot’s dead body and removed it.

The witness further- testified that when, the fight started his wife .was in the colored waiting room near the door and that after the removal of Smoot’s body he saw Smoot’s, gun lying on the table in the ticket office; that after the homicide he heard the defendant tell Mrs. Smoot, while standing in front of the McBride Building on the night of the homicide, that a man had been knocked down, but nobody hurt except that. Witness further testified that there was no light in the colored waiting room at the time of the difficulty, but that there was some light reflected through' the stained glass door of the office and from an arc light in the street about 100 feet from the east side of the waiting room, and that the light was sufficient during the difficulty to identify the people in there, and that he did at the time identify the defendant and his codefendant. '

Mrs. Hymer testified that, on the night of the homicide, she was at the depot with her husband; that about 12:45 they stepped out of the office door, closed it, and went into the colored waiting room, leaving the money and the key to the money drawer in the office; that three men came into the said room, and that while one of them, Mr. Welch, searched her husband, another of them, Louis Benge, came over to her and told her to hold up her hands and keep still, that they were not going to hurt him; that the defendant was standing right close to Meiggs when Meiggs was searching her husband; that they were then permitted to leave and proceeded to Mr. Smoot’s room. This witness further testified as to what occurred *518 thereafter up to the firing of the shot that killed Smoot, substantially the same as testified by her husband, and that Smoot did not fight with his gun, but put it down or dropped it when the fight began.

Leonard Logan testified that he remembered the circumstances of Mr. Smoot being killed the previous March at Ft.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Riddle v. State
1950 OK CR 128 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1950)
Chatham v. State
1938 OK CR 114 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1938)
Cole v. State
1930 OK CR 98 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1930)
Bates v. State
277 P. 676 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1929)
Martin v. State
1929 OK CR 75 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1929)
Barnett v. State
1926 OK CR 142 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1926)
Carle v. State
1926 OK CR 137 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1926)
Wisdom v. State
1920 OK CR 230 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1920)
Meiggs v. State
1919 OK CR 317 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1919 OK CR 310, 185 P. 119, 16 Okla. Crim. 513, 1919 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-state-oklacrimapp-1919.