Eureka weekly sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1887-1902, 1890-04-05
no MISTAKE ABOUT 1T.
A LamentaSly Muddied Newspaper
why Not Acknowledge Error
ManfulIy?

why Not Acknowledge Error
Manfuliy7
With reference to what has appeared
the Enterprise about the sentence OIL
and Nicholas Curnow, convicted
Eureka Of assault with intent to kill,
under an indictment Of murder, the
saws: 1.-THE Enterprise 10
mistaken as to the facts in the above
case. The Curnows did not kill
Courtney in his tracks" but he lived six
or seven weeks after the shooting CO.
and finally died OF intussuscep'
ton Of the bowels. The medical ex'
perts on the trial differed as to whether
the wound superinduced the intussuscep'
Leaving the medical experts to
light over the big word which appears In
the foregoing quotation, the Enterprise
will inform the SENTINEL that so far as
the law is concerned if Courtney had
lived one year and q one day after he
was shot those who shot him would not
be a whit better of-wouldn't have any
better standing in court-than they
would be if he died in his tracks.
The fact that the jury believed de
ceased died Of that big word there, does
not affect the statement Of the Enter.
prise. The Curnows were indicted oil
the crime of murder. They could De
convicted Of any one OF the three degrees
Of that crime only. Assault to kill forms
no part OF the essence Of any n OF the
degrees of murder as defined by the
statute.
The SENTINEL says: From the testi-
mony in the verdict Of the jury, 1t IS ev'
dent that the defendants would have
gone entirely free but for the instructions
permitting q conviction OF assault with
intent to kill.
No one who has ever opened o Ia"
book or crossed the threshold OF q Jus.
tice Court will fail TO realize the TACT
that somebody was very hard up. to Sc
cure a conviction, and that il the jury
had considered assault TO kill q severe
verdict, they would have compromises
on burglary or petit larcency. The law
which gives iuries much latitude, does
not give them that much rope. lntus-
SUBSCRIPTION cannot save that verdict
Virginia Eenterprise.
The SENTINEL does not claim to be as
well yersed in criminal law generally, or
murder and its degrees, or the offenses
included in the commission OF murder,
as the reporter on the Virginia Enter
prise, and for obvious reasons, as zone
of the SENTINEL's staff, from the editor
to the "devil," ever murdered a mar or
was tried and convicted for so doing, or
passed years in the penitentiary, in
which to study out the question as to
what would or could be the lowest de-
gree Of the crime OF murder. Nor has
any one connected with the prosecution
of the Curnows, or engaged in the trial,
from the Judge to the jury, to the least
important witness, risen from a murder
er's cell, by the grace of pardon, to a
reportorial chair by virtue of a convict's
study, enforced as the only means Of
banishing from the minds eye the bloody
corse of one of Eureka's best citizens,
poor Edward Kicker, while the writer OF
the above extract has had each and all oil
such experiences and advantages from
which to form his judgment.
Yet the SENTINEL knows that the
Curnows are safely Gagged in the States
prison, convicted, it is true, not Of the
murder Of Courtney, but of assault to
kill him, in that they shot him on Sep
TENDER ID, 1889, and that he did not die
until October "a, 1889.
Again, it is true that the charge on
which the Curnows were indicted and
tried was murder, but the jury, not ig'
noring, as the Enterprise writer does,
the testimony Of such medical experts
as Doctors Hood Of Battle Mountain,
and George q. Thoma Of Reno, did have
q reasonable doubt as to whether or moi
the wound inflicted upon Courtney BY
the Curnows on September 18th caused
his death on October Gath, and the Law
being that they could be convicted IN
der o charge of murder Of any ~ofense,
the commission Of which Ia necessarily
included in the charge Of murder, and
the Court having instructed to that ef-
feet, brought In their verdict in accord
ance with the evidence and instructions.
The SENTINEL never attempts to in.
t~erfere with the courts, or criticise ~sheir
action on purely legal questions or tech.
nioal points, but II cannot conceive Of
any willful. deliberate and premedi-
tated homicide, In which an assault with
intent to kill is not necessarily included.
An assault being defined as can unlaw-
full attempt, coupled with q present
ability" And in this case the doctors
did testify that Courtney died Of intus.
SUBSCRIPTION Of the bowels, and did differ
as to whether or not the wound inflicted
by the Curnows superinduoed the intus.
SUBSCRIPTION. And it must be borne in
mind that Courtney was not wounded
in the bowels at all by the Curnows, but
was shot in the outer right thigh, caus.
ing a fracture of the thigh bone; hence,
we still claim that the Court was right
in its instructions, and the Jury justified
in rendering its verdict, and we are will
ing to abide by the decision, at least, un.
til the Supreme Court says that we are
wrong.