In 1920, my grandparents, Oliver and Ethel (Latson) Ellis, were separated, due to family problems, and their son (my father) Laverne remained with his father.  Ethel, of course, wanted custody of her son.  Two of her brothers, Felix and Chester, offered to take her from her parent's house at Mount Pleasant in Titus County TX, down to Goliad in an effort to obtain that custody.  They packed five pistols, a shotgun and a rifle for the trip.

    I hold no ill feelings toward my grandparents, nor do I place any blame, but the story is a fascinating.

    The following court, newspaper and government documents present the story as seen from various observers.
 

Oliver F. Ellis victim of brothers-in-law and wife's wrath!

Town thrown into a state of intense excitement when Latsons arrive and shooting begins!

The grand Jury, which is still in session at this writing, have up to this time, Wednesday afternoon, turned in to the court three true bills of indictment. The indictments were against Chester Latson, his brother and sister, charging them with the murder of Oliver F. Ellis here on the tenth of August. All three of these parties are now in jail.

Goliad Advance-Guard Newspaper, Thursday, September 9, 1920

Subpoena FELONY (Home County) (C.C.P., Arts, 513-17) Texas Standard Form

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the Sheriff or any Constable of Goliad County, Greeting

You are hereby Commanded to Summon Mrs Viola Danforth, Jno Weber, R.W. Taylor, Joe D. Taylor, Ralph Kaynea, Jno Lutenbacker, Will Scott, Chas Kasso, Wm Lattie Reed, Heneley Safuentez, and Dr L.W. Kirkland Jr and Alex Spangle to be and appear before the Honorable District Court of Goliad County, Texas, to be held at the Court House of said County, in Goliad on the Second Monday in Sept A.D. 1920, the same being the 13 day of Sept in A.D. 1920, then and there to testify as witnesses in behalf of the State in a criminal action pending in said Court, entitled and numbered on the Criminal Docket of said Court, The State of Texas vs Felix Latson, No 2271, and there remain from day to day, and from term to term, until discharged by due course of law.

Returnable Monday Sept 13th, 1920, at 10 o'clock A.M.

Herein Fail Not, and make due return hereof, showing how you have executed the same.

Witness my official signature, at Goliad this 9 day of Sept A.D. 1920

 W. K. VyDolika Clerk
District Court Goliad County
The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 9, 1920

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the Sheriff or any Constable of Goliad County, Greeting:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to summon the following named witnesses residing in your County, to wit:

O.C. Ramsey, J.L. Tally, Mr M.O. Young, Mrs M.O. Young, Miss Marjory Glaze, Mr R.C. Haydon, E.A. Martin

To be and appear before the Honorable District Court of Goliad County, Texas, to be held at the Court House of said County, in Goliad on the Second Monday in Sept A.D. 1920, the same being the 13th day of Sept A.D. 1920, then and there to testify as witnesses in behalf of the State in a criminal action pending in said Court, entitled and numbered on the Criminal Docket of said Court. The State of Texas vs Felix Latson no 2271, and there remain from day to day, and from term to term, until discharged by due course of law.

Returnable Monday Sept 13th 1920

HEREIN FAIL NOT, but have you then and there before said Court this Writ, with your return endorsed thereon, showing how you have executed the same.

Witness my official signature at Goliad Texas, this 9th day of Sept 1920.

W.M VanDobben Clerk
District Court Goliad County
The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 9, 1920

The State of Texas - MURDER

September 11th, 1920

No. 2271. Vs Felix Latson

The sheriff returned that by virtue of a venire facias to him delivered by the Clerk of this Court, he had summoned the following named persons who had been selected according to law to serve on a special venire in the above Cause to wit: H.M. Lemke, A.R. Franke, Aug. Calle, E.F. Vollers, Weeks, C.A. Urban, Louis Berger, Rowland Taylor, C.H. Berman, Chas. Eichman, L.C. Fomme, W.M. Seiler, W.M. Eddins, M.A. Smart, Ed Meyer, A.W. Hiebel, Hy Bercke, W.P. Bumgartner, W.F. Pettus, A.E. Taylor, J.P. Weber, Otto Abremeit, F.H. Albrech, Geo. Fromme, W.D. Swickheimer, R.L. Webb, Ed Boldt, G.C. Redmon, W.A. Dohman, Walter Slaughter, Chas. Debrodt, Raymond Toerck, Clyde Harbison, And E. E. Payne.

The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 11, 1920

The State of Texas - MURDER

September Term A.D. 1920

No. 2270. Vs Ethel Ellis

Be it remembered that on this, the 11th day of September, A.D. 1920, came on to be heard the motion of the defendant, Mrs. Ethel Ellis, to have an X-Ray examination made of her person, in order to ascertain whether or not a bullet is lodged in her limb, and same having been considered by the court, it is ordered by the Court that the motion be granted, and the Mrs. Ethel Ellis be, at her expense, immediately taken to a physician of her selection, in the City of Beeville, Bee County, Texas, by the sheriff of Goliad County, or his Deputy, and in the hospital at Beeville, Texas, that she be permitted to be subjected to an X-Ray examination to ascertain the existence of the facts or nonexistence of the matters set out in such application. It is further ordered that the sheriff of Goliad County, immediately after such proceeding, return the prisoner to the Goliad County Jail.

The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 11, 1920

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the Sheriff or any Constable of Titus County, Greeting:

YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to summon the following named witnesses residing in your County, to wit:

To be and appear, instanter, before the Honorable District Court of Goliad County, Texas, now in session at the Court House of said County, in Goliad then and there to testify as witnesses in behalf of the Deft in a criminal action pending in said Court, wherein THE STATE OF TEXAS is Plaintiff, and Felix Latson is Defendant, no 2371, and there remain from day to day and from term to term until discharged by the Court.

"A disobedience of this subpoena is punishable by fine not exceeding $500, to be collected as fines and coats in other criminal cases."

Amount of Bond required, $________

HEREIN FAIL NOT, but have you then and there before said Court this Writ, with your return endorsed thereon, showing how you have executed the same.

Witness my official signature at Goliad Texas, this 11th day of Sept 1920.

W.M VanDobben Clerk District Court
Goliad County, Texas
The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 11, 1920

The State of Texas - MURDER

September 13th, 1920

No. 2270. Vs Chester Latson

This day come on to be heard the application of the defendant file herein, asking for a change of venue; and the same, and the evidence and argument of counsel thereon, having been heard by the Court, it is considered ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said application be and the same is refused.

The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 13, 1920

The State of Texas - MURDER

September 13th, 1920

No. 2270. Vs Chester Latson

This day this cause was called, and the State appealed by her District Attorney, and the defendant Chester Latson in his own proper person; and all motions, special pleas, and exceptions which have been filed herein and which were to be determined by the judge, having been overruled, the defendant Chester Latson was thereupon required by the Court in due form of the law to plead to the indictment herein, and in open court he pleaded not guilty to said indictment which plea is here now entered of record. And it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that a trial alike fair and impartial to the accused and that the State cannot be had in this Goliad County, because it appears to the Court that a jury in this cause cannot be obtained in this County; It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the Court, upon its own motion, that the venue of this cause be and the same is changed to DeWitt County, Texas, to be tried in the District Court of said DeWitt County, Texas and the defendant Ethel Ellis, being in custody, the sheriff of this county, is ordered to remove him to the said county of DeWitt, and deliver him to the sheriff of said DeWitt County, forthwith.

The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 13, 1920

The State of Texas - MURDER

September 21st, 1920

No. 2270. Vs Chester Latson

This day this cause being called, and the State by her Attorney, and the defendant and his co-defendant Ethel Ellis, who is charged with and offense growing out of the same transaction and is so charged with said offense in Cause No. 2272 of this Court, each in person, being present in Court, the said defendant, Chester Latson requests that he be allowed to server from his co-defendant Ethel Ellis, in the trial of this cause and that she be placed upon trial in said cause No. 2272, which request is here now by the Court granted; and the said defendants having agreed that the defendant Ethel Ellis shall be first placed upon trial, it is ordered that the trial of this cause be postponed and that the cause of the said Ethel Ellis, defendant in cause No. 2272 be first heard by this Court.

The State of Texas - District Court Goliad Texas - September 21, 1920

"Let the Law of the Land Take its Course"

We the Jury find the defendant Chester Latson not guilty as charged in the indictment.

Signed jno. W. Alexander, Forman

The State of Texas - District Court DeWitt Texas - July 7, 1922

ORDER ON CHANGE OF VENUE

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs- No. 4130 Felix Latson

In the District Court of DeWitt County, Texas

On this the 17th day of January, this cause was called for trial, and the state appeared by her District Attorney, and the defendant, Felix Latson, in his own proper person and by attorneys; and all motions, special pleas, and exceptions which have been filed herein, and which were to be determined by the judge of this court, having been overruled, the defendant, Felix Latson, was thereupon required by the court in due form of law to plead to the indictment herein, and in open court he pleaded not guilty to said indictment, which plea is here now entered of record. And it appearing to the satisfaction of the court that a trial alike fair and impartial to the accused and to the state can not be had in this, DeWitt County, because of the following reasons, to-wit:

Two companion cases of co-defendants of this defendant have heretofore been tried in this county, one having been tried eighteen months ago, and one six months ago, each of which trials were for the murder of the same individual that this defendant is charged with the murder of. All three of said cases involve the same facts. Each one of the other two trials created a great deal of interest in this county, and both trials attracted large crowds to the court house and the cases and the facts connected therewith were much discussed, not only in the town of Cuero, but throughout the entire length and breadth of the county. The examination of said jurors on their voir dire, especially in the last trial, disclosed that a great many had made up their minds and it was difficult to obtain a jury. For these reasons the court changes the venue in the case of The State of Texas Vs. Felix Latson to Bexar County, Texas, and to the District Court of the 37th Judicial District, and the recognizance of the defendant shall be made returnable in that court on Monday the 19th of February, 1923.

After the court had announced his intention of changing the venue in this case, the state's counsel, R. L., Daniel, District Attorney, and the defendant's counsel in open court agreed on Bexar County, Texas, as the county to which the venue of this case should be changed.

It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court, upon its own motion, that the venue of this case be and the same is changed to Bexar County, Texas, to be tried in the 37th Judicial District of Bexar County, Texas. The attorney for the state and the attorneys for the defendant having in open court agreed that said cause should be transferred and the venue changed to Bexar County, Texas and to the 37th Judicial District in said County. And the defendant, Felix Latson, being on bail in this case, it is further ordered that he forthwith enter into recognizance before this court in the sum of ten thousand dollars, conditioned for his appearance before the District Court of the 37th Judicial District of Bexar County, Texas, on the 19th day of February A. D. 1923, and there remain from day to day and term to term of said court, until discharged, to answer said indictment herein. And the said defendant is here now committed to the custody of the sheriff until he enters into said recognizance, and in default of his entering into said recognizance the said sheriff will remove him to the said County of Bexar and deliver him to the sheriff of Bear County before the 19th day of February 1923, to answer in this cause.

The State of Texas - District Court DeWitt Texas - January 17, 1922

To the Clerk of District Court of Bexar County, Texas

In the case of The State of Texas vs Felix Latson, No 30781, charged with murder, you will please issue a subpoena for the following named witnesses residing in the Counties as below set out.

Testimony of said witnesses is believed to be material to the State of Texas in said Cause.

Returnable June 25th 10 A.M.

Witness my hand this

D. A. McAskill
District Attorney for Bexar County, Texas
THE STATE OF TEXAS
County of Bexar

Before the Undersigned Authority on this day personally appeared the above named

DA McAskill, District Attorney, who being by me duly sworn, states under oath that the facts contained in the foregoing application are true.

D. A. McAskill
District Attorney

Subscribed and sworn to Before me, this 5 day of June 1923

Asceola Archer
Clerk District Courts, Bexar County

By AWHarlos Deputy

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - 31 May, 1923

The State of Texas - MURDER

No. 30781 Vs Felix Latson

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
37th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Request for Subpoena - Witness (Defense argument)

Now comes the Defendant, Felix Latson, in the above styled and numbered cause and makes this, his application for continuance and for grounds therefor says that he cannot go safely to trial at this time on account of the absence of the Witnesses, Mrs Ethel Ellis, who resides in Houston, Harris County, Texas and Dr J. W. Burns, who resides in the City of DeWitt County, Texas.

Said Defendant has exercised due diligence to procure the attendance of each and all of said Witnesses upon this Court. With regard to the Witness, Mrs Ethel Ellis, Defendant says that he caused to be issued out of the District Court of Bexar County, 37th Judicial District of Texas, an out of County to Harris County, Texas subpoena for the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, returnable on June 25th, 1923. That said subpoena has not yet been returned unto this Court, though it was duly mailed to the Sheriff of Harris County, Texas, on the date of the application by Defendant for its issuance, on information and belief Defendant says and charges the fact to be that said subpoena was in truth served upon the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, but as stated before, no return has as yet been made thereon. Defendant says that he is advised that said witness is now in the state of Oklahoma temporarily visiting with her mother and sister.

Defendant further says that this cause was set down for trial on or about the first day of June, A.D. 1923, for this the 25th day of June, A.D. 1923 and immediately thereafter, as soon as this Defendant was advised of the setting of said cause, caused such subpoena to be issued as aforesaid. That in addition to such process, Defendant would show the Court that this cause is here in this Court by change of venue from the District Court of DeWitt County. That this Defendant was indicted in the District Court of Goliad County, on the 8th day of September, A.D. 1920 and thereafter on the 25th day of September, A.D. 1920, venue of said cause upon the Court's own motion was changed to the District Court of DeWitt County, this Defendant made application for an out of County Subpoena, to-wit, to the County of Titus, State of Texas, when and where they resided, and said subpoena was duly served upon said witness, and that said witness has been in attendance on the District court of DeWitt County at every term thereafter save one in the defense of this cause and the facts which the Defendant expects to prove by said witness are the following:

(A) That the witness Mrs Ellis is the sister of the Defendant, Felix Latson, and the wife of Oliver Ellis, the deceased, and the mother of the child LaVerne Ellis, that a short time prior to the homicide for which this defendant is indicted the said Mrs Ethel Ellis was in Mt Pleasant, Texas, and ill at the home of her mother and had been denied the privilege of seeing her child, said LaVerne Ellis, by said Oliver Ellis from whom she was separated at said time and was by the father of said Oliver Ellis to-wit: J.W. Ellis and such illness of said witness Mrs Ellis was increased and aggravated by such denial and thereupon that she, Mrs Ethel Ellis, sought the aid of this defendant to help her in lawfully and peacefully securing the possession and custody of said child and that this defendant thereupon acceded to such request and advised said witness that he would endeavor to do so, being advised that it could be done lawfully and peacefully and to that end this defendant, through an attorney in the town of Mt Pleasant whose advice was sought on behalf of said Mrs Ellis by Chester Latson, another brother, and Mrs Ellis was advised that the rights of said Mrs Ethel Ellis, being separated from her husband, were equal to the rights of her said husband, said Oliver Ellis, to the possession and custody of said child and that either could take it from the possession of a third person and further the said Mrs Ethel Ellis will testify that at no time did this defendant ever agree to or to the doing of any acts of violence toward the deceased Oliver Ellis or to any one else in the securing of such child, but on the contrary that all agreements, conversations or understandings had between this defendant and said Mrs Ethel Ellis as well as all agreements, conversations and understandings had between this defendant and Chester Latson, who was also indicted for the offense of murder growing out of the same transaction and who had been acquitted herein, were expressly made expressed and understood by and between said Chester Latson, said witness Mrs Ethel Ellis and said Felix Latson that the possession of said child, if obtained at all, from a third person, not the parent thereof, should be had peaceably and at no time did this defendant express to said witness any purpose or intent to do anything or any act of violence toward the said Oliver Ellis or any other person in securing the possession of said child; that the materiality of this testimony will be shown hereinafter; that this defendant would further show by said witness and that she would further testify if present on trial that she and this defendant and her brother Chester Latson left Mt Pleasant on the 7th day of August 1920, for Goliad, Texas, for the sole and only purpose of peaceably taking possession of said child, solely and only from some third person and not from the said Oliver Ellis; that she, the said Mrs Ellis, was at the time armed with a small, thirty-two caliber pistol which had been given to her by Chester Latson for the purpose of defending herself against any unlawful attack, should the occasion arise and not otherwise; that said defendant, Mrs Ellis and Chester Latson came to the town of Goliad and on the morning of the day of the homicide that she, the said Mrs Ellis, Chester Latson and this defendant caused inquiry to be made to ascertain the whereabouts of said child and also to ascertain where the said Oliver Ellis was at the time, the purpose in making such inquiry was that if it should be ascertained that said child was with the said Oliver Ellis, that no effort would be made to secure possession or custody of said child; that such inquiry resulted in the information that the child was on the gallery of the residence of T.H. Danforth, playing there by himself in the town of Goliad and that the said Oliver Ellis, father of the child, was at his place of business some several blocks away in the business part of the town of Goliad; That thereupon, Chester Latson drove the automobile around to and in front of the home of T.H. Danforth in order to enable his sister to secure possession of the child, that Mrs Ellis was sitting in the back part of the car and that Chester Latson was driving the car on the left hand side of the front seat and the defendant, Felix Latson was sitting on his right also on the front seat; That when they reached the Danforth house that said Mrs Ellis got out of the car, walked in the door opening onto the gallery and from there proceeded through the house and down along the kitchen gallery to a screen door opening from the kitchen onto said gallery; that she there saw Mrs T.H. Danforth in said kitchen and inquired of her where her child LaVerne Ellis was; that Mrs Danforth said to her "Go Away, your child is not here," and, by other testimony it will appear that the child was in the house in a closet in a room thereof and Mrs Danforth knew this; that said witness Mrs Ellis will further testify that she immediately began to make a search for said child and that she ran back along the gallery and through the hallway to the door opening into the hall from the side room; that there she met Mrs Danforth, who had a pistol in her hand, and that said Mrs Danforth then said to Mrs Ellis, "I will shoot you," and threatened to kill the said Mrs Ellis and she thereupon scuffled with the said Mrs Danforth and took said gun away from her and told the said Mrs Danforth that she, Mrs Ellis, did not want to hurt her in any way and did not hurt her; that all she wanted was her baby and then asked her where her child was; that just prior to this scuffle, the said Mrs Ellis ran out on the front gallery and told the defendant and his brother, who were outside of the yard fence in front of the house, that she, Mrs Danforth, said that the child was not there and that she, Mrs Danforth, had a gun and had threatened to shoot her, said Mrs Ellis; that thereupon the said Chester Latson told her to look for the child and that Mrs Ellis then ran back into the house calling for the child, and at not time made any effort to do any injury or violence to the said Mrs Danforth, and the materiality of this is further shown in that Mrs Ellis will further testify that Chester Latson called to her and said "hurry Ethel, get the baby and lets go"; that said Mrs Ethel Ellis thereupon ran around the house, and thereupon she came out of the yard without having found the baby, and got into the back seat practically exhausted and in a highly nervous condition.

That witness will further testify that about the time she came out and got into the car, that the deceased, Oliver Ellis, was approaching the Danforth home along the sidewalk, coming from the East; as said Oliver Ellis approached the car, he ran his hand into his pocket, and that thereupon Chester Latson said to him "take your hands out of your pocket, don't start anything;" that thereupon the said Oliver took his hand out of his pocket and continued to approach and again put his hand in his pocket and Chester Latson said "take your hand out of your pocket, we do not want any trouble", or something to that effect.

That thereupon the witness asked the said Oliver Ellis, "Where is my child, tell me where my baby is. I want my baby;" that Mrs T.H. Danforth , who was then on the gallery of the house said "the baby is not here" and the said Oliver Ellis then said "no, the baby is not here", and the witness, Mrs Ethel Ellis, continued to beg the said Oliver Ellis to tell her where the child was and that he, the said Oliver Ellis approached the car to where Mrs Ellis was sitting and again said in reply to the question of the said Mrs Ellis about the child and her request that she be permitted to see the child; that the child was not there; that thereupon Chester Latson said "why don't you tell here where the child is, she has come a long ways to see it and wants to see her baby;" that thereupon the deceased, Oliver Ellis, said "the child is at the store," meaning thereby his place of business on the North side of the public square of the town of Goliad, and "I will get in the car with you and you may see the baby, but you can't take it away;" that thereupon Mrs Ellis conceded to this arrangement and that said Oliver Ellis got into the back part of the car on the right hand side of Mrs Ellis and sat down beside her, and Chester Latson got into the car in the front seat on the left hand side at the wheel and this defendant got in on the right hand side in the front seat and Chester Latson drove the car on down toward the public square in the direction of the Ellis store where the child was stated to be at the time and for the purpose of seeing the child only; and by said witness it would be further shown that when she got into the back seat, she had placed the small pistol above referred to, a thirty-two caliber, in her lap; defendant will further show by said witness that Chester Latson drove the car down to the square and that at or about the time that Chester Latson turned to the square and while he and this defendant were looking ahead, that the deceased, Oliver Ellis, suddenly grabbed the pistol from the lap of witness Ethel Ellis at the time when she, the said Ethel Ellis, was not doing anything or saying anything to said Oliver Ellis at all, to arouse any apprehension in him or to show any intent or purpose to anyway injure him, that said deceased grabbed said pistol and it appeared to her that he was intending to shoot her or Chester Latson or this defendant, which she knew not, she grabbed at said pistol and missed it and the deceased thereupon pointed said pistol in a threatening manner at the back of Chester Latson's head as he, Chester Latson, was driving the car and looking ahead; and that she again grabbed at it and knocked the pistol down and as she did the deceased fired the pistol and the bullet entered the right leg of the witness and ranging forward and downward through said leg and entered the left leg of said witness; this defendant nor Chester Latson were saying anything or doing anything or making any demonstration of any character indicating any purpose on their part to do to said Oliver Ellis any violence of any character, but were both looking straight ahead and Chester Latson had his hand upon the steering wheel of said car driving the same as before stated; that this witness would further testify that when deceased fired said shot which as before stated was the first shot fired, that she felt the sting and pain of the bullet and cried out "He has shot me," meaning that the deceased had shot her; that thereupon this defendant, having removed his pistol immediately from the pocket of the automobile door, immediately fired several shots at the said Oliver Ellis, one of which caused his death, in an effort to defend her, his sister, of such an unlawful attack.

That this testimony is very material to the defense of this defendant in this that it is the theory of the State and it will endeavor to prove upon the trial of this case that the defendant, Mrs Ethel Ellis and Chester Latson, entered into a conspiracy to kill the said Oliver Ellis and came from Titus County, Texas, to Goliad, for this purpose with the intent to take the child from the possession of said Oliver Ellis at all hazards and with the purpose and intent of killing the said Oliver Ellis to enable them to secure the possession of the child forcible and unlawfully; that upon the trial of this case the State will endeavor to prove by Mrs Danforth and by other witnesses that the said witness, Mrs Ethel Ellis, entered the home of said T.H. Danforth with pistol in her hand openly displayed, and that she, after entering the house, made an assault with such pistol upon the said Mrs Danforth and threatened to kill the said Mrs Danforth and cursed and abused the said Mrs Danforth and that after she had made a search for the child, that she, Mrs Ethel Ellis, went out in front of the house and was on the sidewalk when the said Oliver Ellis approached, and said Mrs T.H. Danforth will further testify that upon the approach of the said Oliver Ellis, that the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, was on the outside of the car and cursed him and threatened to kill him and that she was so compelling said Oliver Ellis to get in said car that this defendant was aiding and abetting her in compelling said Oliver Ellis to get into the car against his consent and it is the theory of the Sate and the Sate will endeavor to prove by the Witness J.W. Ellis, that the first shot in the car which was fired, was not fired by the deceased, but was fired by the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, and that she shot the deceased Oliver Ellis in the back without provocation and while he was looking and leaning out of the car; all of which testimony above set out on the part of the State will be contradicted and disproved by the testimony of Mrs Ethel Ellis was not shot by her husband, Oliver Ellis, from the rear of said car, but was shot by accident by this defendant, while this defendant was shooting at deceased, that the wounds on the person of said witness will show that the bullet entered her right leg, ranged downward and forward, and through the right leg, entered the skin slightly above the knee on the left leg that this bullet hole was small indicating that it was from a small calibre pistol such as that of Mrs Ethel Ellis and at the time, to-wit, a 32 calibre pistol, and it will be shown to this defense in this further respect as it will be shown and it is a fact that but one shot was fired from said 32 calibre pistol had by Mrs Ethel Ellis during the whole difficulty and that this shot was fired by the said Oliver Ellis.

(B) That the diligence used by this defendant to secure the attendance of the said Dr J.W. Burns as a witness upon this court is as follows:

As soon as this defendant was advised of the setting of this cause in the District Court for the 37th Judicial District of Texas, for this 25th day of June, A.D. 1923, this Defendant applied to the Clerk of this Court for an Out-County subpoena for the said witness, Dr J.W. Burns, returnable June 25th, 1923, and caused the same to be issued by said clerk and transmitted to the sheriff of DeWitt County, Texas, the County in which said witness, Dr J.W. Burns, resided, and said subpoena was by said sheriff of DeWitt County, Texas, on the ____ day of June, 1923, served on the witness, Dr J.W. Burns, as shown by the sheriff's return upon said subpoena, which is on file amongst the papers in this cause and is made a part hereof; that the said witness, Dr J.W. Burns is not now in attendance upon this Court; that after said subpoena was so served upon the said witness, Dr J.W. Burns, one of his sons was operated on at a hospital out of this State and that the said witness, Burns, is now out of the State of Texas, temporarily on medical business.

That by the witness, Dr J.W. Burns, the Defendant expects to prove, and he would testify if personally present, as follows:

That he is a graduate of an accredited Medical School, and is a physician and Surgeon of more that thirty years practice; that he is an expert in taking X-ray pictures, and has many years experience therein. That on or about the 15th day of June, A.D. 1921, he made an examination of Mrs Ethel Ellis, and examined the wounds on both of her legs; that he also made several X-ray pictures of both of the limbs of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis at the time stated. The said Dr J.W. Burns would further testify that from the location of the scars on the legs of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, that in his opinion as an expert, that at the time the shot was fired, that Mrs Ethel Ellis was sitting with her right leg crossed over her left leg and that the bullet causing the wounds in the right and left leg of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis came from the right of her from the rear and an angle of 45 degrees, going downward and inward; the witness, Burns, would further testify, if present, that in his opinion as an expert, the bullet causing the wound in the legs of Mrs Ethel Ellis would not have come from the front, but came from the rear and to the right of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis.

The said witness, Dr J.W. Burns, would further testify, if present, that the bullet causing the wounds in the legs of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis was of a very small calibre. The witness, Burns, would further testify, if present, that from the X-ray pictures made by him that no bullet remained in either the right or left leg of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis. That in his opinion as an expert and also from the X-ray in pictures made by him, that the bullet went through the right leg of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, made a niche in the bone of the right leg of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, and entered the left leg; that the point of entrance on the right leg was about four inches higher than the point of exit on the right leg; and that the wound in the leg fitted or coincided with the wound on the lower part of the right leg. That the testimony of the said witness, J.W. Burns, is very material to the defense in this case in that the witnesses for the State will testify that the wound in the leg of Mrs Ethel Ellis was made by a large calibre gun, and that the wound or entrance was just above the knee, which is in direct conflict with the testimony of the witness J.W. Burns.

That the witness, Ethel Ellis and Dr J.W. Burns, are not about by the procurement or consent of this defendant.

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - June 25, 1923

No. 30781

The State of Texas -vs- Felix Latson

 In the 37th District Court Bexar County, Texas

To hon. W. S. Anderson, Judge:

Now comes the defendant and for answer to the State's contest of defendant's application for continuance, says:

Answering the first paragraph thereof, that the application for subpoena to Harris County for said witness was applied for by Mr. Richard Waldeck Attorney for record for said defendant, after he had personally gone to Houston, Harris County, Texas on the 6th day of May, 1923, and ascertained her residence at the time, and was personally advised by the said witness that she resided at 1511 San Jacinto Street, Houston, Texas, as will be seen by the accompanying affidavit of said attorney Waldeck, hereto attached. And thereafter, said attorney as soon as this case was set down for trial, caused said application to be issued and fixed the exact location of said witness at the time; that said subpoena for said witness, directed to Harris County was not returned into this court until yesterday, June 25th, after the State had announced ready for trial, and the return thereon shows that the witness could not be found at said location, and defendant in good faith, and his attorney, believed that she had been served with such process. Therefore this defendant says that he has exercised all diligence in the premises, and had the right to rely on such service, and also that the service heretofore had out of the district court of DeWitt County would insure her attendance.

Answering the second paragraph, this defendant says that he verily believes said Mrs. Ethel Ellis is not in the city of San Antonio, nor was she here on the 24th day of June, 1923, as alleged in said contest, and this defendant further says that he verily believes that she has not been in the city of San Antonio during the year 1923, that he has made diligent effort to ascertain whether or not she is in the city of San Antonio, and has caused inquiries to be made at all of the hotels in the city of San Antonio where she would in any probability lodge on her arrival; that he also caused the several trains arriving from the North to be met on last evening in an endeavor to locate her, has also made inquiry this morning with regard to the possibility of her arriving, but has been unable to locate her.

Answering the third paragraph of said contest, defendant demurs thereto, because it appears on the trial of the two cases there referred to he was not a party to either case, and did not have an opportunity to examine or cross examine such witness.

Answering further to paragraph third, defendant says that he is entitled to have the testimony of this witness, and that he has exercised due diligence to secure the same, and that he could not secure a writ of attachment because said witness has never disobeyed the process under which she was summoned to appear and testify in his behalf.

Further answering said paragraph three, defendant says that said Ethel Ellis is in the State of Oklahoma only temporarily, visiting with her mother and sister and that he had no reason to believe that she would disobey the subpoena of this court or the process issued out of DeWitt County, and he has relied thereon.

Answering paragraph four of said contest, insofar as it applies to Doctor Burns' testimony and the necessity therefor, this defendant says that said testimony is not purely expert testimony as alleged in said contest, but that it is testimony of material facts and is based upon X-ray pictures taken by said Dr. Burns himself and measurements made by of the several wounds on Mrs Ellis' person at the time mentioned in the application for continuance, and his testimony, this defendant verily believes, cannon now be reproduced for the reason that the wound on the left leg was in a large measure superficial and rapidly disappearing at the time of the examination made by Dr. Burns, and such testimony of Dr. Burns is material in showing as a strong circumstance that deceased fired the shot at the angle of the several wounds, will show according to the testimony of Dr. Burns that it came from the rear and the right of the witness Mrs Ellis.

Wherefore, defendant prays as before that his motion be granted.

(Signed) Felix Latson

Subscribed ans sworn to before me this 26th day of June, 1923.

Osceola Archer
Clerk of the District Courts
Bexar County, Texas

By AWHarlos Deputy

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - June 26, 1923

No. 30, 781.

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs- Felix Latson

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, 37th JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Be it remembered that upon the trial of the above numbered and entitled cause, while Dr L.L Griffin was testifying as a witness in said cause, over the objection of Defendant, then and there duly made and urged, the District Attorney was permitted to ask and did ask said witness the following question:

"Q. Dr., suppose the wound is more or less wasting away, now in one side of the wound there is festering on it, or a harder bruise on it than the other side, would it not cause a larger wound because more of the tissues are destroyed on one side that the other and the shape of the scar would depend a great deal upon, that say for instance, there is a hole in the flesh and some of the tissues on one side of the hole have festered and break away."

And over the objection of Defendant the witness was permitted to and did answer said question affirmatively.

The testimony in this cause shows that Ethel Ellis, the sister of Defendant, was shot at the time that the deceased, Oliver Ellis, was killed and said witness Ethel Ellis, testified that she was shot by her husband, Oliver Ellis, before he was shot by this Defendant. The testimony further shows that the said Ethel Ellis was examined by the witness, Dr. L.L. Griffin within twenty days after the infliction of the wound in her leg to determine the character and size of the bullet that inflicted the wound in her leg. Dr. Chilton had testified for the State that he had examined the wound in the legs of Ethel Ellis, and that said wound was a large one and that it was made by a large calibre bullet. The witness, Dr L.L Griffin had testified in behalf of the Defendant that said wound was a small one and made by a small calibre bullet. The testimony further shows that the deceased, Oliver Ellis, and Ethel Ellis, sister of Defendant, were in the automobile together on the back seat when the first shot was fired and the first shot was fired from the rear of the car. Ethel Ellis testified that the first shot struck her in the leg and was fired by her husband, Oliver Ellis, the deceased. The State's theory was that the first shot was fired by Ethel Ellis and that she shot Oliver Ellis. The State's theory was that the said Ethel Ellis was shot by a large calibre gun and the State was endeavoring to show that the wound in Ethel Ellis' leg was a large one.

There was no testimony in said case to show that the wound in the leg of Ethel Ellis had festered or become infected prior to the examination of the same by witness, Dr L.L Griffin, nor at any time, but the wound had healed cleanly and readily.

The Defendant objected to the asking of the question by the District Attorney as above herein before set forth and to the admission in evidence of the answer of the witness, Dr L.L. Griffin, in the affirmative, for the reason that the said question was a hypothetical question, not based upon any facts in the record and there was no evidence that the wound had festered or become infected in any way. Which objection so made by the Defendant to said question and answer and the admission of said testimony was by the Court over-ruled and said question was permitted to be asked said witness by the District Attorney and said witness permitted to testify and answer the same in the affirmative, to which action of the Court in so permitting said question to be asked by the District Attorney and in permitting said witness to answer said question and give said testimony, the Defendant then and there in open Court excepted and no here tenders this his bill of exception no.____ and prays the Court that the same be allowed, approved and signed by the Court, ordered filed and made a part of the record in this cause.

Examined, approved and signed by me, and ordered filed and made a part of the record in this cause, this the 1st day of October A.D. 1923.

W. S. Anderson
Judge of the 37th Judicial Dist
Bexar County, Texas

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - October 1, 1923

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs - FELIX LATSON

IIn the District Court of Bexar County, 37th Judicial District of Texas

Gentlemen of the Jury:-

At the request of the defendant, I instruct you as a part of the law of this case, as follows:

If you believe from the evidence that Mrs Ethel Ellis was shot by Oliver Ellis in a scuffle in the automobile over a pistol and that thereafter said Oliver Ellis was shot and killed by Felix Latson, either in a defense of himself or his brother or sister and you further believe that the defendant was not acting together with them or either of them, in such killing and the said killing was not in pursuance of a common intent and previously forced design in which the mind of defendant united and concurred then I instruct you that you must acquit the defendant.

Respectfully Submitted

Chaunboro Watson Johnson
Maurmau Estair
Daugherty, Daugherty Garlton
N, M Crain
K Hadock

Attorneys for Defendant

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - ????? 1923

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs- FELIX LATSON

In the District Court of Bexar County,  37th Judicial District of Texas

Gentlemen of the Jury:-

You are further instructed that if you believe from the evidence or have a reasonable doubt about it, that after the deceased arrived at the Danforth home Chester Latson and Felix Latson, either or both, took hold of the deceased or punched him with a gun in an effort to make him, the deceased, tell his wife where the child was, and you further believe that the deceased stated that the child was at the store and that he would go to the store with them in the automobile and let Mrs Ethel Ellis see the child, and that this was agreed to and in pursuance of such agreement the deceased got in the car and the parties started toward the store in order to permit Mrs Ellis to see the child, and that while they were on-route to the store the deceased suddenly grabbed or took hold of the pistol of the said Mrs Ethel Ellis, and in the scuffle which ensued, if any, over such pistol the same was discharged and Ethel Ellis was wounded thereby, and thereupon the deceased was shot and killed by the defendant, Felix Latson, and you further believe that at the time Defendant shot deceased it reasonably appeared to him, viewed from his standpoint at the time he fired the shot which killed the deceased, that the deceased was about to kill or inflict some serious bodily injury on Mrs Ellis Or Chester Latson or Himself acting on such apprehension the defendant shot and killed the deceased or you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you are instructed that the defendant would not be guilty of any offense and you will return a verdict of "NOT GUILTY".

Respectfully request the court to submit the foregoing special charge to the jury as part of the law of this case.

Chaunboro Watson Johnson
Maurmau Estair
Daugherty, Daugherty Garlton
N, M Crain
K Hadock

Attorneys for Defendant

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - ????? 1923

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs- FELIX LATSON

In the District Court of Bexar County, 37th Judicial District of Texas

Gentlemen of the Jury:

At the request of the defendant, you are instructed as a part of the law of this case as follows:

Homicide is permitted by law when the party assailed is in imminent and pressing danger of losing his life or suffering serious bodily injury, whether the homicide be committed by the party about to be slain or seriously injured or by some party in his behalf, and the same rules which regulate the conduct of the person about to be injured in repelling the aggression are also applicable to the conduct of him who interferes in behalf of such person. A reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury will excuse a person in using all necessary force to defend his life, or person, or the life or person of another, and it is not necessary that there should be actual danger, provided the person who interferes in behalf of such person acted upon a reasonable apprehension of danger as it appeared to him from his standpoint at the time, and in such case the person acting under such real or apparent danger is in no event bound to retreat in order to avoid the necessity of killing the assailant.

Now if you believe from the evidence, or have a reasonable doubt about it, that defendant and Mrs Ethel Ellis and Chester Latson entered into an agreement to take said child from some party other that the deceased, and that the defendant and Chester Latson and Mrs Ellis went to the Danforth home to obtain possession of said child from Viola Danforth and that the deceased came over and without the participation or agreement of defendant or previous knowledge on his part, Chester Latson forced deceased into said car and while in said car, deceased made some effort or demonstration to take the life of Ethel Ellis or Chester Latson, or do them serious bodily injury as it reasonable appeared to Felix Latson, viewed from his standpoint alone and the said Felix Latson shot and killed deceased, you cannot convict defendant and if you so believe or have a reasonable doubt thereof, you will acquit defendant and say be your verdict "NOT GUILTY".

Respectfully submitted,

Chaunboro Watson Johnson
Maurmau Estair
Daugherty, Daugherty Garlton
N, M Crain
K Hadock

Attorneys for Defendant

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - ????? 1923

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs- FELIX LATSON

In the District Court of Bexar County, 37th Judicial District of Texas

Gentlemen of the Jury:

You are instructed that if you believe from the evidence or have a reasonable doubt about it that Mrs Ethel Ellis and Chester Latson, either or both, took hold of or punched the deceased, Oliver Ellis, for the purpose of making him tell Mrs Ethel Ellis where the child was and you further believe that thereafter the deceased voluntarily entered the car for the purpose of taking the said Mrs Ethel Ellis to the store in order to let her see the child and while enroute to the store deceased grabbed the pistol of Mrs Ellis and fired the same wounding said Mrs Ethel Ellis and that thereupon the defendant, Felix Latson, in defense of his sister or brother or in self defense shot and killed deceased, and so, if you have a reasonable doubt thereafter, then and in that event you must acquit the defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

Chaunboro Watson Johnson
Maurmau Estair
Daugherty, Daugherty Garlton
N, M Crain
K Hadock

Attorneys for Defendant

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - ????? 1923

THE STATE OF TEXAS -vs- FELIX LATSON

In the District Court of Bexar County, 37th Judicial District of Texas

Gentlemen of the Jury:

At the request of the defendant, I instruct you as a part of the law of this case, as follows:

You are instructed that if you believe from the evidence Ethel Ellis and Oliver Ellis were married in August, 1914 and that they lived together as husband and wife until June 22, 1920, and at about that time they separated and ceased living together as husband and wife and that Oliver Ellis took the minor child and permitted it to stay at the house of Mrs Viola Danforth, and Mrs Ellis did not reside at the Danforth home, that the said Ethel Ellis had the legal right to see her child and the legal right to go upon the Danforth premises in a peaceable manner to see her child.

Respectfully submitted,

Chaunboro Watson Johnson
Maurmau Estair
Daugherty, Daugherty Garlton
N, M Crain
K Hadock

Attorneys for Defendant

The State of Texas - District Court Bexar Texas - ????? 1923

The State -vs- Felix Latson

VERDICT

File of July Term, A.D., 1923
San Antonio, Bexar, Texas

To the Honorable Judge of the 37th Judicial District of Texas.

We the Jury find the defendant Felix Latson guilty of manslauter.