, 1884-02-03

affirmed by the supreme court, and 1t
directed the immediate execution Of the
sentence.
THE CRIME
for which Cornish was convicted was
the murder of Elmirs L. Curliss, on
October 9th, 1882, at her bone near
Sun Dance mountain, in the extreme
northern portion Of this county. The
death was effected by choking the dis
eased with his hands. The nearest he
was traced to the scene of the murder
was two miles, but the circumstances
indicative OF his guilt were obtained
from all along the road for a distance
Of forty miles. Cornish's own contra
dictory statements acted very powerful
ly against him before the jury and in
the supreme court. He did not GO on
the stand as a witness In his own be-
half, and suffered the testimony of the
prosecution to go to the jury uncontra-
dicted.
He was indicted at the November
term Of 1882, q. N. Potter esquire,
prosecuting attorney at that time,
drawing the Indictment. AS the wit
nesses were not all known at the time,
the trial WAS continued until January
10, 1888, J. @. Baird esquire, the newly
elected prosecuting attorney conduct
ing the prosecution. J. A. Riner.
esquire, had already been assigned by
the court for the defense. After a trial
consuming four days, the jury brought
in a verdict of guilty of murder in the
second degree.
IN THE sUPREMK COURT
the counsel for defense filed q motion
for a new trial, and the same was
argued and overruied by the court. A
bill of exceptions was preferred and the
case taken to the supreme court on error.
On January o, the case was argued be-
fore d full bench, and the case taken
under consideration.
On yesterday morning the court an
nounced its decision. While Judge
Blair was absent, Judge Parks an
nounced that Judge Blair had concurred
in the opinion before his departure, so
that he would proceed to resd the
unanimous opinion Of the court. Said
Judge Parks:
The main point on which error was
arranged being as to the suHlciency of
the evidence against the defendant Cor
nish. The first error assigned is as fol-
lows:
THAT the court erred on the trial In
overriding the objection of the defend
ant in the question asked of the wit
ness F. Ledeborn as to whether that
hand of the defendants could have pro-
duced those wounds referring to the
wounds said to have been found upon
the body and neck and throat of Ell
mira L. Curliss)."
AS to this point the court says that it
was no error in said ruling.
The second error assigned was In re-
gard to the refusal of the court to
strike out the evidence Of witness Ham,
ilton Cornell.
The court thinks that there is moth
ing in that and gives its reasons for SO
holding, saying that it was reliable
and strong.
The third error assigned raises the
question whether the court could prop
erly admit as evidence the contents of
a letter written by the prisoner in Da-
kota territory.
The contents of the letter were offer
ed in evidence by the pros
ecution for the purpose Of showing that
the defendant had written that it was
another Charles F. Cornish that com
mitted the murder, and also for the
purpoee of showing by other testimony
that the defendant was the only
Charles F. Cornish in the vicinity or in
that region Of country where the muir
der was committed.
This was an important point and the
court discusses the law and authorities
in regard to this matter at some length,
but holds that the evidence was prop
erly admitted as being one Of the
means by which the guilt Of the de.
PENDANT might be established.
Errors 4, 8 and 6 relate solely to in
structions, and the Instructions were
by the court sustained In every re-
spect.
The seventh error was in regard to
the form of the verdict, but the court
held that there was nothing in this OBJ
lection.
The eighth assignment of error Is
that the verdict is not sustained by
sufficient evidence. etc.
This is really the main point in the
case, and in respect to this the court,
after reciting that the prosecution
claimed in this case that II the evil
dence is contradictory the court above
would have no right to disturb the
verdict, quotes from q leading case on
this point.
where the evidence is contradic-
tory, and the verdict Is against the
weight of evidence, though a new trial
may be granted by the court trying the
cause, In their discI elton the decision
denying the same is not examinsble by
an appellate court" State VS.. Corwise,
16 Mo-. 391; Hebron VS.. State, 7 Texas,
90.
The court goes on to discuss the
question at considerable length, but the
outcome Of its deductions from the