Executive document from Mississippi Governor James L. Alcorn; October 19, 1870

Documents
Executive document from Mississippi Governor James L. Alcorn; October 19, 1870

Document Network
Document Metadata

Each transcribed document contains links that connect it to other documents on the same topic in the collection.

People

Alcorn, J. L. (James Lusk), 1816-1894 Colaborn, Unknown Markham, Henry Markham, Mrs. Unknown Ritts, Unknown Smith, Cotesworth P., 1807-1862 Stringfellow, Unknown Taylor, Creed

Events

Crime Crime--Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon Crime--Assault and battery Crime--Murder Crime--Poison Crime--Threat Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure--Commutation of Sentence Criminal Procedure--Convicted Criminal Procedure--Imprisonment Criminal Procedure--Sentencing Criminal Procedure--Trial Supreme Court Ruling. Mississippi--Ritts v. State of Mississippi Supreme Court Ruling. Mississippi--State of Mississippi v. Creed Taylor (1870)Supreme Court Ruling. Mississippi--Stringfellow v. the State of Mississippi

Organizations

Courts and Judicial Systems Courts and Judicial Systems--Circuit Courts Courts and Judicial Systems--Criminal Juries Mississippi--Executive Department Mississippi--High Court of Errors and Appeals Mississippi--State Penitentiary (Jackson)

Occupations

Cooks Judges Lawyers Medical Profession Medical Profession--Physicians

Places

Mississippi--Warren County

Vital Statistics

Death Disease and illness Wounds and injuries

Page 1

[note] Executive office
Oct 19, 1870 [/note]

The State
versus
Creed Taylor.

Conviction in the Cir-cuit Court of Warren County of the Murder of Henry Larkum, July Term
1870—

Application has been made to the Executive in this Case to commute the sentence of death to imprisonment ^in the Penitentiary^ for life.

In the examination of the case I was not only satisfied that the sentence of death ought not to be executed, but grave doubts have been stated, whether said Taylor, was proved guilty of any crime whatever. I have commuted the sentence but reserve to myself the right to futher interpose, if upon more mature reflection, or fur-ther developments my Judgement shall so incline.

The leading facts in testimony to the Jury on the trial, as reported by the Judge who pre-sided, the District Attorney, ~~and~~ the counsel for the defense, ~~Some~~members of the Jury and other sour-ces are substantially there

In the summer of 1868 a youth, Hen-ry Larkum about fifteen years of age, died sud-denly. The mother of the deceased testified that her son went early in the morning, as usual, to feed the horses; that the house in which she was at the time was about forty feet from the crib, and about the same distance from the kitchen, where the cook was preparing breakfast. Shortly after

Page 2

her son went out, she heard something like the groan of a person in pain, and went to the crib where she found her son in a speechless condition.

The physician who examined the deceased, at first thought the youth had died in a fit of appoplexy. He then thought death was caused by epelipsy. Finally after full examina=tion, he beame satisfied that death was produced=by external violence of some kind or other, but would not portend to say that, the violence had been at the hand of a human being; mentioned several other ways in which death may have been caused.

No external bruises or marks of violence are spoken of as on the person of deceased—nor does it appear that any post mortem examin=ation was made wth a view to definitely ascer=tain the source of the death.

The confession made by Taylor was more than a year after young Lareun^'s death, and was to the effect; "that some persons thought he, Lareun, died with fits, that if he did he, Taylor, gave him fits by butting him, that he could butt any one to hell if he got a fair hit at him." This ad-mission or confession was made with a Colaborn in the field with whom Taylor was quarrelling, and was referred by the witness to a spirit of "blowing",

The testimony as it impresses my mind

Page 3

fails to prove the "Corpus delicti"; in other words, that the deceased came to his death by violence in=flicted by human instrumentality or otherwise!

In order that the conviction should be in accordance with law it must be proved by tes=timony—direct or circumstantial, that death was produced by violence, and as poisoning, gun shot wound, stabbing, blows, or in some other way.

After this has been ~~[?]~~ done by independent tes-timony, then the extra Judicial confession of the accused, that he was the quilty agent the violence, will warrant a conviction.

In the case of Stringfellow vs the State, 26 Miss Rc^p_" 157—the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Smith—it was clearly laid down as the law on this subject; "that the extraJudicial Con=fessions of the accused, when the Corpus delicti of the offence is not proven by independent tes-timony are insufficient to warrant the convic-tion of the accused".

What Caused the death of Larence was not proved by independent testimony. He may have died from congestion, from Epelepsy, by a fall indu-cing concussion of the brain; or by the Kick of one of the horses he went out to feed. Means were not taken by the physician to resolve this doubt.

But there is a negative fact that has much weight on my mind. The Mother of the deceased and the cook woman were within forty feet of the Stable

Page 4

where the youth was found lying inrensible—And the Mother does not state, that, Creed Taylor, was residing on the premises, or that he had been seen anywhere about them, shortly before, or shortly after the sad event. If the accused had been known to have been close by, so that he might have had opportunity to kill his victim—the case would have been greatly strengthened. The Circumstance that Taylor was not proved to have been on the premis=es at the time, or that he had a right to be there, or that he was even so much as in the neighborhood, which if true could ~~have~~ easily have been done, is a most pregnant circumstance to induce belief, that he had no agency in the death.

J. L. Alcorn
Gov^r.

Oct 19 1870—
Executive office

P. S. Since taking action in this case, for the reasons before stated, my attention has been ~~drawn~~ directed to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of this State, Ritts vs State, where on a State of facts, analogous to those in this case, a new trial was awarded—this decision reaffirms the prin=ciple of law ruled in the Stringfellow Case.

J. L. Alcorn