Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1890-03-22
A STRANGE sgNTEa CE.
The Judge is Either Oh His Bal
aDce, on n Paper Men Are Sadly
Mistaken.


The Virginia Chronicle, Reno
Gazette, Journal, Silver State, and in
fact nearly all of III State ex-
changes, have printed an item to the
following effect;
"The jury in the case Of the Cur
now brothers, tried in the District.
Court at Eureka on a charge OF MUIR
der in killing William Courtney about
a wear ago, returned q verdict OF as
sault with intent to commit murder.
The Judge sentenced Nick Curnow to
six years and William Curnow to
eleven years in the State Prison. He
could not have pleased the people bet
ter except by increasing the number
OF years OF confinement G. the would
be assassins."
The Curnows have been duly de-
livered to the Warden Of the State
Prison. That is sure.
But that which The Enterprise can
not understand is how could the Cur
nows be convicted OF assault to kill.
They were charged by the Grand
Jury OF Eureka with the crime OF muir
der, and they were tried upon that
indictment. There are three degrees
Of murder mentioned in the statute,
and assault to kill is not one Of them.
The first is murder in the first degree,
then murder in the second degree, and
the lowest degree is called man
slaughter, the severest penalty Tor
| which is confinement in the State
Prison for ten years.
In the case of the Curnows, they
| killed the man they assaulted right N
his tracks. There can be no excuse
of assault to kill in the ease because
the man was killed.
The probabilities are that u ex-
| changes are mistaken in their reports.
The sentence OF IL years against VIM.
| Curnow, though, leads us entirely
astray to guess what vas the probable
| conviction, as the crime for man.
slaughter is ten years.
II the sentence is correctly reported,
the Curnows can get out under writ OF
habeas corpus within 48 hours.-Vir-
ginia Enterprise.
The Enterprise is mistaken as to
the facts in the above case. The Cur
nows did not "kill Courtney in his
tracks," but he lived six OF seven
weeks after the shooting occurred and
finally died OF intussusseption OF the
bowels. The medical experts on the
trial differed as to whether the wound
superinduced the intussusseption.
The Court instructed the jury that ii
they found that death IA not pro-
duced by the wound itself, directly or
indirectly, or il they had reasonable
doubt as to whether it was or not,
they could, if the facts warranted, find
the defendants guilty OF assault with
intent to kill, which instruction was
based on Section 4l2, of the Criminal
Practice Act, which reads as follows
Sec. 412-In all cases the defendant
may be found guilty OF any otfense the
commission OF which is necessarily
included in that with which he is
charged in the Indictment, or may be
found guilty OF an attempt to commit
the otIense charged.
The indictment was for murder, and
the Court charged the jury that an
assault with intent to kill was neces-
sarily included in a charge of murder,
and the jury evidently had doubts as
to whether the wound was either the
direct or indirect cause OF death, and,
hence, under the instructions OF the
Court mentioned above, found the
defendants guilty of assault with in
tent to kill.
At any rate, We surmise that the
case will be appealed and the Su'
preme Court will, in that case, pass
upon the correctness Of the instruc'
tons of the District Court.
From the testimony in the verdict o
the jury, it is evident that the defend
ants would have gone entirely free
but for the instructions permitting {
conviction of assault with intent t
kill.