worth in the service rendered. They give no warrant for disregarding the plain provision of the statute that no employee in the classified service shall be discharged except upon written charges, with an opportunity to appear and defend.

The order of the State Civil Service Commission that the relator should appear and take an examination was unauthorized by law. She had a right to disregard it and the order for her discharge was void.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Error, vs. WILLIAM H. BARNES, Plaintiff in Error.

Opinion filed December 22, 1915.

1. CRIMINAL LAW-when court cannot say jury were not warranted in disbelieving defendant's story. The Supreme Court can not say the jury, in a murder trial, were not warranted in disbelieving the defendant's story that he shot his housekeeper unintentionally while attempting, in self-defense, to take a revolver from her in a violent struggle which resulted in considerable injury to the defendant, where the evidence shows that the deceased was shot four times, (twice in the back,) that the rooms where the struggle is claimed to have taken place bore no evidence of any struggle, and that there were no marks of violence on the person of the defendant, who was drunk when the police officers came in response to his summons.

2. SAME-judgment will not be reversed because attorney employed by defendant did not exercise greater skill. Where the defendant in a criminal case is able to, and does, employ an attorney of his own selection, without any request on his part to the court to appoint other counsel and without changing his attorney until after the judgment of conviction, the Supreme Court will not reverse the judgment merely because the attorney who conducted the trial did not try the case as skillfully as might have been done.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. GEORGE Kersten, Judge, presiding.

SCOTT & JAFFIE, and SHORT, DAVIS & RUST, for plaintiff in error.

P. J. LUCEY, Attorney General, MACLAY HOYNE, State's Attorney, and GEORGE P. RAMSEY, for the People.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE FARMER delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff in error, William H. Barnes, was indicted, tried and convicted in the criminal court of Cook county for the crime of murder and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. He has sued out a writ of error to have reviewed such judgment, and assigns for error that the evidence was not sufficient, that his rights on the trial were not properly protected by counsel, and that the court erred in its rulings on the admission and rejection of testimony and in the giving and refusing of instructions.

The proof shows plaintiff in error (hereafter called defendant) is a colored man about fifty-six years of age, a former employee, for several years, of the Pullman Palace Car Company. On January 19, 1914, he was living at 1640 South St. Louis avenue, Chicago, in property owned by him, with Nina Donahue, his housekeeper, also colored. On the day above mentioned, an acquaintance, Louis Schewing, called upon him about ten o'clock in the morning and he and defendant spent the day together. Between five and six o'clock in the evening defendant called the police headquarters by telephone and requested that officers come to his house. Several police officers were sent to defendant's house, arriving there about six o'clock P. M. Three of the police officers testified they found defendant and his friend in the front part of the house, drunk. Nina Donahue's body was found in the kitchen, on the floor. The doors between the front and the back rooms were locked, and the key to one door was found on the kitchen floor, under some paper, by one of the officers. A revolver, with five empty

chambers, and a hatchet, were found on the kitchen table. An empty whisky bottle was found on the kitchen floor near the body of deceased, and a bottle about one-half full of brandy was found in the front room where defendant and Schewing were. The officers testified they saw no evidences of a fight or struggle about the house and saw no marks of violence upon the person of defendant. Defendant first told the officers upon their arrival and in answer to their questions, that he had an argument with his housekeeper and had shot her. He later said that she had tried to kill him with a hatchet and had tried to shoot him, and Isaid he had not wanted to kill her. The officers testified defendant and Schewing resisted arrest and were taken to the station by force.

Dr. LaCount, the coroner's physician, testified to having held a post-mortem examination of the body of deceased, and that she was shot once in the elbow, twice in the back and once in the chest, the bullet entering about level with the nipples and passing through the heart, and gave it as his opinion the death of deceased was caused by gunshot wounds.

Schewing, who was a witness called by the court, testified he knew nothing of the killing until the arrival of the officers; that he did not hear defendant call the police over the telephone nor hear any shots fired. He testified he and defendant had taken two drinks of brandy; that he had never seen deceased until the day of the visit, and only once that day, when she came into the front room and played the piano.

Defendant testified that deceased, Nina Donahue, was part Indian and part negro; that she was his housekeeper and a very good girl; that after Schewing came to his house on the morning of the homicide, and somewhere in the neighborhood of the noon hour, deceased came into the room where defendant and Schewing were and defendant asked her to play the piano. She played one piece and then

went to the back part of the house. Defendant and Schewing, before deceased came into the room where they were, had been drinking brandy from a bottle sitting on a table. The bottle was about one-half full of brandy after they took their last drink. After deceased had left the room defendant went to get the bottle for another drink and said it was gone, that the girl had taken it away, although he does not claim to have seen her do so. Defendant and Schewing in the course of their talk had spoken of Schewing's daughters, who were young women, and Schewing said they could play the piano. Defendant said he asked Schewing to bring them to his house to play for him. When the first bottle of brandy had disappeared defendant got another bottle from a dresser drawer in his room, but says that neither he nor Schewing then drank out of it. About 4:15 P. M. Schewing was dozing off to sleep, and defendant went to the kitchen to get a drink of water and to tell deceased to prepare the evening meal. She was not in the kitchen. Defendant testified that after getting a drink he started to return to the front part of the house, where Schewing was, and found the door through which he attempted to pass was locked and the key gone. On turning around he saw deceased with a hatchet in her hand, staring like someone wild. He asked her why she locked the door, and she with much profanity told him she was going to kill him. He asked her to be quiet and said he had company in the front part of the house. She replied that defendant and the other man in the house were plotting to get her out of the house and bring the daughters of the other man in to run it, and said when she got through with him he could not bring the man's daughters to the house or marry one of them if he wanted to. She then struck at him with the hatchet, but he warded off the blow, grappled with her, and they scuffled up and down on the floor until he finally got the hatchet from her. They were then, he said, in his bed-room. Defendant said he then went to

another door leading into the dining room and found it locked also and no key in the door. Deceased then went to a dresser in the room, where she secured a revolver. Defendant grabbed her and they scuffled, he trying to take the revolver from her. During the scuffle one shot was fired, but the scuffle continued, deceased saying she was going to kill defendant. Two more shots were fired and deceased groaned and released her hold on the revolver. Defendant said when he secured the revolver he intended to fire the other chambers and did fire one of them; that he thought he hit the door; that when he fired that shot deceased had him by the hair; that she then hit him in the jaw, cut his mouth and loosened his teeth, so that they were loose at the time of the trial. Deceased knocked or shoved him to the floor, and when he fell the revolver was discharged again. Deceased then disappeared and defendant lay on the floor some time, he could not say how long. When he opened his eyes everything was dark. He pulled himself up, and after steadying himself turned on the light, looked into the kitchen and saw deceased lying, with her head toward the stove, dead. Defendant then examined himself to see if he was shot, and finding that he was not, went out of the back door, around to the front door and into the room where Schewing was fast asleep. He then went to the telephone, called the police station, and testified he told the officer his housekeeper had just been shot. He says he was perfectly sober when the struggle occurred between him and the deceased, and that after going into the front part of the house he took a drink of brandy and might have taken more than he ought to have taken. About that time the police came. Defendant weighed 155 pounds and deceased 140 pounds.

The theory of defendant, as appears from his testimony, was that deceased was jealous, made so by the talk about Schewing's daughters; that she took the bottle one-half full of brandy from the table in the front part of the house and drank it, and when defendant went back to get a drink