Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1884-03-28
PEOPLE VS., PIERsON.
The Dissenting Opinion by Sudse
Buck.
Wood River News-Miner.

with the following dissenting opinion
of Judge Buck in the Pierson case:
oWbiIe | concur in most OF the
opinion as read by the Court, ! am
compelled to dissent from SO much
,baraof as refers to the refusal OF the
Court to admit the declarations of de-
fendant at the time he called upon
the Deputy Sheriff for protection a
short time prior to the homicide. The
record shows that defendant did not
ask protection for himself, but for his
babitation. Under section 20, page
327, of our statute, a person has at
least as much and possibly more pro-
lection in law in defending his prop
erty as he does in the protection OF
his person. The evidence admitted
prior to the offer to prove the decla-
rations referred to tended to show that
the deceased, Hull, had on several oc-
casions prior to the homicide, during
the three or four months prior thereto,
been in the premises Of defendant,
oyerthrowed the stove, broken the
door, discharged his revolver and done
other acts of violence. One of these
occasions had been four or five days
prior to the shooting, and the last one
on the day Of the shooting, but just
how long does not appear. The Sher-
if, or the Deputy Sheriff, had fire.
uuently been to the house to quiet
the disturbance, had elected the de-
ceased, and the deceased had violated
his promise not to return to the prem
ises. Within a short time before the
homicide defendant had returned to
his house, or his alleged house, found
the stove overthrown, his wife, or his
alleged wife, beaten. Within ten or
fifteen minutes prior to the homicide
he had sent for physician and he
himself had gone 70 the Sheriff and
asked protection for his property.
The doctor arrived soon after his re-
turn. DIR. Patterson testifies that de-
PENDANT seemed agitated about some
thing--seemed somewhat exercised
This was from three to five minutes
prior to the shooting.
Our statute, page 1923, section IL
provides that to constitute murder il
the first degree there must be delib
Grafton and generalization. The doc
trine of the Tres geste," as stated b,
Bishop G. F., section l,0S6, is tina
declarations are competent wheneve
near enough to the act either befor,
or after, to be probably prompted b,
the same motive. The act of goin2
to the Sheriff and asking protection
from an officer of the law would seen
to be prompted by the same motiv
as sending for the physician and tn
same alleged motive of committin;
the homicide-that is the protection
of his property. The whole transac
ton occurred within a half hour. an
it is claimed that the declarations oil
fered III evidence were not more tina
ten to fifteen minutes prior to tn
shooting. The objection to such dec
larations is that they are self-servln
and may have been made for the o,
casion. But in the case at bar, til
condition of the house, the bruisin
of the wife, or alleged wife, wei
facts existing outside of the defen,
ants cooperation, In sending for
physician, and in going for peat
officer he acted as any good citize
would act, and it is hard to presun
fraud upon a defendant when all h
acts may be accounted for in tt
same manner that we would accoul
for the same acts by any other perso
] cannot avoid the conclusion tn
his ooipU for the Sheriff y.S ca 40