The weekly Elko independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1872-1887, 1877-06-24
Thr Harrington Cnsc.


this case in yesterdays paper is only one
OF number which have noticed that
are, 10 say the least, far from being
fair. While under our system Of gov
crnment it is probably necessary that
everyone occupying n public position
should be liable TO arraignment at the
bar of public opinion, the Judges of
our Supreme Court should never no
called before that bar except upon very
grave charges, i'll order that their de-
cisions "!nHy not fail TO command tho
respect so essential to che ecrful acqui-
csccrce in their bigh dccrecs," which
failure to command respect is brought
about by just such articles rs yours Of
yesterday, creating III tle minds of the
people nh idea that those judges are
either imbcci!c or corrupt, anu i'll league
with thieves md murtlcrcrs. More es-
pccially should this not be done when
We consider the fact that those judges
nro precluded hy their position frcm
the criticism may be.
Now you are mistaken in supposing
that the Supreme Court so far stultiticd
itself in this case, is TO decide that an
objection i'll the lower court to witness
tes;ifying 10 his opinion, was rightfuIly
sustained, ana then reversing the case
bccnuae nnotEcr witness WAS not allowed
TO testify to hs opinion.
1t Was not because the defendant was
not allowed 10 testify TO '.his opinion, /"
that the case Was reversed, but because
lie was not allowed to testify 10 II fact
relevant to the case, and ono upon
which the jury had to pass.
An opinion is conclusion drawn
by witness from facts known to him.
The question asked the defendant was,
".it the inoiacnt of the discharge OF the
pistol at the deceased, did you, or did
you not, re.ily believe that you were i'll
danger Of losing your life or receiving
great bodily harm?" This was no. usl;-
ing him to draw all Inference from any
other fact, hut simply ;n state what was
passing III his mind the time the fatal
shot Was fred; this waH the Statement
If fact, and not of nn opinion. II
may bc Gaid that IL defendant should
no: be allowed to testify to his belief at
snch u time, because he may and prob
| ably will, testify falsely. But he may,
nnd any other witness. may, do tle snErG
thing concerning any other fact, and
the jury are as competent to decide
what is false in tho one cuse as III the
other.
Ike jury was instructed upon the
trial, tlH, "ihe law Of sell. defense j.
founded ca necessity, and in order tc
| justify the taking Of life upon this
ground, 1t IuUst net Cnly appear that
| defendant had reason To believe, and
did 6"icec, that he was in danger of his
life, or Of receiving great bodily injury,
atc." Here you will see that it became
necessary for ihn jury to pnas upon the
vsrT fac; concerning which Tie Cont
had refused to ALLOW ihe defendant ia
testify, ana for which refusal the case
wGs reversed.
The character OF our present Supreme
Court justices, both for ability mnd pro
hiiy, il such that their decision docs
not reqniro this drIcuac ut my hands,
and further, the decision itself is it,,
own best defense, but | write this To
cndcaYo" to correct some wrOnn i'm
prcs'iona that have gene abroad con-
cgrnins this case. LEX.