The silver state. [volume] (Unionville, Nev.) 1870-1903, 1876-11-18
THE ROVER ASE.

The Supreme Court of this State has
reversed the Judgment of the Court of
this District in rhe'case of 1.-THE State
of Nevada VS.. j. w. Rover, The opan-
ion appears in full in the Enterprise of
the 10th instant. This is the second
time the case has been reversed aud
sent back for new trial. The case was
first tried under the ''Struck Jury
Law" and second trial entailed con-
siderable expense on the county; yet,
under the circumstances, sall readily
conceded the justice of the decision.
On the second trial Rover was again
convicted of murder in the first decree.
The counsel for the prosecution. Dis
trict Attorney Grass aud Judge Leon.
ard, the latter nov elacted to the SUI
preme Bench, were so particular that
no instructions were offered except
those taken bodily from the books
The case was appealed again by defend
ants counsel and the Supreme Court
reversed the decision upon the follow
ing instruction:
"By reasonable doubt is ordinarily
meant such one as would goverh or
control you in your business transac-
lions or usual pursuits of life.''
The Supreme Court in referring to
the above instruction, after citing au-
thorities to show what the definition of
reasonable doubt is, uses the following
language.
mo Court, however, has ever before
attempted, within our knowledge, to
60 to the extent laid down in the
charge under consideration"
Z. The learned judges had better ac-
quaint themselves with the decision of
their own Court, as it appears ia the
Third Nevada Reports in the case of
1.-THE State of Nevada vs.. Millian,"
before making such positive and
sweeping assertions. In that case the
defendant was indicted for murder. and
tried before Judge Rising of Storey
county, who is conceded to be the
ablest Judge in the State of Nevada.
Judge Rising, as is shown by the re-
ports. gave the same instruction in that
case that the Supreme Court reverses
the Judgment in the Rover case on,
and the defendant was convicted and
the case appealed to the Supreme
Court. At that time there were emf
nent jurists on the Supreme Bench;
not men chosen by politicians from
third-class lawyers Lewis and
Judge Beatty, senior. The instruction
was objected to and argued before the
Supreme Court. Justice Beatty wrote
the opinion of the Court. and after refer
ring to the language of the instruction,
said:
THE Jury we're plainly told that if
they had any reasonable doubt as to
defendants guilt, they must acquit,"
and held that as the jury had been so
instructed, that the instruction COM
planned of was not error.
Now. in the Rover case the jury was
instructed that if they had any reas-
enable doubt of the defendants guilt,
-
after weighing all the evidence. they
must acquit: SO it will be seen that the
two cases are exactly alike; hence,
everyone who has read the decision
in the MILAN and Rover cases must
necessarily come to the conclusion that
the Supreme Court of Nevada does not
know it's own decisions. We do not
impute any other than just motives to
Isthe Supreme Court. but we certainly
think that when it reverses former
decision, it should say SO, and leave
the blame. if blame there be. where it
belongs, instead of shifting it to the
shoulders of others. .,..e...-...