
    The People, Resp'ts, v. Joseph Wood, App’lt.
    
      (Court of Appeals,
    
    
      Filed October 7, 1890.)
    
    AItjbdep,—Appeal .
    Defendant was convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree. Held, on the facts, that the conviction was proper and that there was no ground for a new trial.
    Appeal from judgment of the court of general sessions of New York city and county, convicting defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree.
    
      The indictment charged the defendant with the murder of Charles Ruffin. Both were colored men. The evidence tended to show Ruffin was engaged in a controversy with a timekeeper of the aqueduct in a shanty grocery store at section twenty-one of said aqueduct; that there was a large crowd there; that Ruffin turned around and asked defendant if he was talking to him, and defendant replied he was not; that each said he did not want to-have anything to dp with the other; that Ruffin advanced toward defendant, who warned him to go away or he would “ give him one;" that Ruffin then said he was not afraid of a man with a knife or gun, and that no good would come to a man who should do anything to him; that defendant then drew a - revolver and shot him twice, from the effects of which shots he died two days-thereafter.
    Defendant testified that Ruffin threatened to take his life, and, although he had pushed him away, was advancing upon him and. drawing a knife when he shot him, and that he did so in self defense. This was contradicted by witnesses for the people.
    
      Hobt. J. Haire, for app’It; McKenzie Semple, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

The record in this case discloses no exception that is not wholly frivolous. The counsel for the defendant frankly confessed that he had been unable to find an exception which he thought fit for argument, but he' submitted the case in the hope that in our examination of it we might find some ground upon which to base a reversal of the judgment. The case has been carefully examined, because it involved human life, but we have been unable to find the slightest reason for disagreeing with the result arrived at in the trial court.

By a mere filing of a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction, the defendant has compelled the county of New York to print the whole record of his case, and it has been submitted to us by counsel in the hope that wc might find that ground for-reversing the judgment of conviction which he had been unable-to discover! By this process the defendant has also succeeded in having the execution of the sentence delayed several months with no good ground existing therefor.

Whether a criminal convicted of a capital crime should have it in his power in all cases to procure such delay in the execution of his sentence is a most serious question, and, as it seems to us,, well worthy the careful consideration of the legislature.

The judgment should be affirmed.

All concur.  