The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1885-02-24

roe from the Jail at Clinton, Monday after
DoOn, rendered the confession made tha
night insdmissible. II is true that tricl
or article was used aud that liquor wa
used TO the extent OF making drfendsn
drunk, and that questions were asked hin
with the hope of inducing confe. sion from
him, but this was fruitiess. No threat o.
promise was made. II is true, also, tina
| Cason, in response to a question BY defend
ant as to what good it would do tell, said
"The state might be easier upon him.
But this was no promise. /, was at most
but the expression of an opinion in re
spouse to defendants question
ln File vs.. Com, supra, the jailer in a
conversation with a prisoner respecting
herself and other prisoners, had said TO her
shat If the commonwealth would use any
OF them as a witness SUI pose il would
prefer you to any of the Others" aud she
after that made a confession. II was held
that there was nothing in this expression oil
the jailor which amounted to a promise or
which should cause the confession TO be
rejected.
The case at bar diff rs in no essenti Al
particular from the one just cited on the
point under discussion Now, can il be
said that Csson's statement to defendant,
II he could get out on bond he could
drive horse for him, be held
10 invslidate the confession subsequently
made, Tor the law is tn Al where a confession
is made under the influence Of SOM colla,-
eral benefit or boon, nO hope or fear being
held out In respect 10 the p ir.icular GRIM
inAl charga, that then such confession,
though made under the influence of such
collateral lnducement, is receivable. /
Wharton Grim. law, sec. 6S7.
And the court restricted the state from
offering ip evidence only such portion of
the COME sion of the defendant as was cor
roOoraied by other evidence IN the case,
and ais called the attention of the Jury TO
the point by an appropriate ins .ruciion
And there was abundant corroborative
testimony in support of The confession ties
timOny perhaps sufficient in aud of it>elf
10 warrant a conviction. Ii The first con-
fession mgde in the Jail - Bartlett and
CasOn was properly received as being made
without the INFLUENCE OF promise or threat,
then the subsequent confession was prop
eriy received also. And as to the comics
sion made 10 Oechsli, although he could
not det"l; the milOr matters, Yet he I'D
remt inter the important points and this
was sufficient To require in all cases of a
Confession that il should be rel, cted if the
witnesses thereto could not remember all
that Was said, however unimp )rtant, would
be in many, il not In most, instances Ia ex-
clude ihe confession altogether. Stale VS..
helson, Il Ala, 573.
5. AS 10 the Instructions, they covered
the law Of the case and left nuthiIg 10 be-
derived so that auv instructions rrfused
on behalf o. the defend mt, w-re properly
refused, 10 IN tier now well drawn they
were. And there was no errCr III refusing
10 give the third instruction asked by de
PENDANT. 1t declared In sunS ance, that In
order TO sIstain the ch#rgs msie In the in
dictIIent, that Nli4iui, deliberate and
premedIta'ef killing. with malice. afore-
thought, mus, be found, and II at il was
not sufficient 40 prove that the killing Of
Wells was done in the psrpetraIiol VI a
robbery.
Our statutes provide fthat killing in
such circumstances should be murder In
the first degree, as much so as when com
mitIed by means o. passion or lying IN
wait: Section 1882.
The phrases, every murder" with which
the sec ion begins, is only USED as a me srs
II, a..
p, the section makes no homicide murder
that was not murder at common law: an6
the next succeeding section fully supports
this view byldeclAring that "si other kinds
Of murder 1t common law, not herein, |
Nc, shall be deemed murder 10 the second |
iegree." To say Ina, Z man may XII AL
other in the attempt TO rob him. is not MUIR |
fer in the rsl..degree, is TO fling into the face
Df the pl iinesi Statutory provisions.
The RUE al COMMON law Was Just as |
Section 1872 subst ,ntially lays il down,
that homicide committed in the perpe- |
rotlOn OF felony Was murder in the first !
iegree whether There vas any precedent I
htentiOn OF doing the homicide act or not. !
Hollis, i. G., :; | East F. G.. 255; Hawk,
:. {. chap. %, sec. ii and ll2; 4 Black,
;om. (Cooloyl 800.
So the statue has been interpreted by this
curt:
State vs.. Jennings, Is Mo. 435; state VS..
'enpiin, % Mo-; stste VS.. Green, 66 Mo-,
81; state VS.. Swain, SO Mo.
And 60 The law has been declared in
alItornia, upon statute substantially
ientical with our OVID: People VS. Ycs
utz, 40 Cal. $50. 4
So, too, in Delaware: State VS.. Boice,
Ions, C., Cor. 355; state VS.. Jones, 10.
|.
This subject has been extensively dis
used by Norton, Judge, in the Shork case,
5 Mo. 552
A different view from thai here expressed
as held in state vs.. Eamest, 20 Mo. $50;
nd in state VS.. Hopper, II Id. 425; but
his was always done by a divided count.
thiRk these cases should no longer be
'llowed.
t. There w.s no error i'm permit.
ng Mrs, 3. II. Wells to answer that she |
dyed that the tail man who came on the
ght OF the murder WIS the defenca ant. She g
rmed this opinion from his voice or his &
otion. She had been acquainted with
I'M from his earliest childhood. Trans q
essors OF the law have frequently been
by their voice and size: Mills d
i've. Evid., 1l3; King VS.. Brock, 81, H.
u