|
Henry Gilliam – Wife Murder
Henry Gilliam, convicted of the murder of his wife, Rachel Gilliam, and
sentenced to life time imprisonment in the penitentiary, has been denied the privilege of a new trial. The State
supreme court has overruled all of the exceptions made by Gilliam's lawyers.
The case is interesting for a number of reasons. A bit of evidence in the trial is an index to shameful conditions
which perhaps exist. The admission of this evidence was one of the grounds of the appeal, as it was a conversation
between a witness, will Hill, and the deceased about two weeks before she was killed. The supreme court in the
decision written by Associate Justice Wm. B. Jones, declares "the testimony was competent to show the relations
between the deceased and the defendant," and the exception was overruled.
Here is an abstract from that astonishing conversation - "We was just laughing and talking as people usually
do, talking about men whipping their wives, and she said 'Henry is ? to whip me unless he gets his pistol every
time. If me and Henry gets into a dispute on the back side of a field, he turns the plow loose and makes for the
house to get his pistol and puts it in his pocket," etc.
Does such a state of affairs exist as would be suspected from that testimony? Is it such a common thing for negro
farm hands to whip their wives that the subject comes up for general conversation in a matter of fact way? Aside
from the points of law involved the case is interesting because of that conversation which the murdered woman had
with another negro and in the presence of the negro who subsequently was tried for his life. All of which would
indicate that there is yet a lot of ? among these people
After overruling certain contentions as to the refusal of the lower court to admit certain evidence which had been
given in the coroner's inquest, the supreme court ? another important question. The fourth exception stated that
the presiding judge called in charging the jury that a sufficient legal provocation involves the idea of an assault
and battery.
The decision of the supreme court reads "The exception does not fully represent the charge which was in those
words. A sufficient legal provocation involves the idea of an assault and battery, of at least some indignits
offered which is calculated to throw the average man into sudden heat and passion".
"The trial judge had previously in his charge correctly defined murder and manslaughter. In the sentence
above quoted the explanation as to what would constitute a sufficient legal provocation to reduce an intentional
homicide from murder to manslaughter was rather too favorable to the defendant, as it is not true that any indignity
which is ? to throw the average man into sudden heat and passion is a sufficient legal provocation".
Another interesting point on which the supreme court ruled was in regard to the law as to involuntary manslaughter.
The defendant tried to show by the testimony of his daughter that the killing happened unintentionally in a playful
tussle for the possession of the pistol. The trial judge had charged that it would be manslaughter for one to
handle a dangerous weapon or implement in a careless manner to the detriment, injury and loss of life of some one
else. The layers of the defendant ? that the trial judge made a charge upon the facts in explaining the point
as to carelessness with dangerous weapon but the supreme court in overruling the contention says that a person
who causes another death by the negligent use of a pistol or gun is guilty of manslaughter, unless the negligence
is so wanton as to make the killing murder. There are several other points in the case, but the others are of
such a technical nature that they are not of material import.
The evidence in behalf of the State was to the effect that Gilliam and his wife were quarreling in their house,
Gilliam was heard to curse the woman and call her a liar. She returned the ? and he threatened to kill her. There
was a scuffle between the, and two pistol shots were heard. When the second shot was heard, the woman fell out
of the doorway to the porch floor, and Gilliam soon rode off rapidly for a doctor. The defendant himself stated
that the pistol had been in the bureau drawer and that when he got it out he and his wife got into a tussle over
it. During the scuffle with the weapon was fired, one bullet making an entrance wound under the left arm of the
woman. He then rode away to get a physician. All of these facts the supreme court ? ? afforded evidence that
death resulted from a wound inflicted by the defendant, although counsel for the defense moved for a new trial
on the ground that there was no testimony to show That Gilliam inflicted the fatal wound. The case came up from
Newberry.
|
