The record-union., 1892-03-30
Two DECISIONS.
The Issues Raised by One Convicted
of Murder.
irregularities, but Not Sufficient to
Disturb the Verdict-A Nevada
County Case.

The Supreme Court yesterday filed its
decisions in Deputy Clerk Govan's office
IN the case of the People VS.. James w.
Smalling (appellant).
Smalling was convicted of murder in
the first degree, with punishment fixed
at Imprisonment for life, and appealed
from the judgment, relying upon the fol-
lowing assigned errors of the law:
First-The court erred in admitting in
evidence the written confession of de-
fendant, under objection.
Second-The court erred in excluding
exhibit ''B'' from the jury, it being evil
dence of what occurred on the discharge
of the jury at the first trial of the action
and in sustaining the peoples objection
thereto.
Third-The court erred in denying de-
PENDANTS motion to be discharged from
custody and in pronouncing judgment.
Fourth-The court erred in instructing
the jury to find for the people upon the
pleas OF former acquittal, former convic-
ton and former jeopardy.
After going over the circumstances OF
the case at great length, and citing vari-
Gus cases, the Supreme Court says: "The
record clearly shows that irregularities
existed in the manner in which these ver-
diets were returned into court-irregulari-
ties occasloned without necessity and
which could have been easily avoided.
In cases of felony, and especially where a
defendant is charged with the crime OF
murder, the only correct procedure is to
adhere strictly to the statute. Any other
course is dangerous innovation, which
generally results in miscarriage OF
justice.
l, L L.
do not effect the validity of the judgment
and are such as come squarely within the
provisions OF the Penal Code cited. The
judgment.of the lower court is affirmed
A NEVADA COUNTY CASE.
The court also filed its decision in the
the case of JamesI Kendrick and
Alice kendrick respondents VS..
The Diamond Creek Consolidated
Gold Mining Company and Oscar New
house. The appeal was from an order of
the court below refusing TO change the
place of trial of the cause from Nevada
County to the city and county of San
Francisco.
1t appears from the complaint that the
mining company mentioned is an asso-
citation Of numerous persons formed for
opening and developing mines in Ne
vada County; that the injury complained
of was i'll Nevada County and was occa-
while engaged in business there.
After the demurrer had been filed to
the complaint the court below refused to
change the place of trial on the ground
that the defendants are shown to be an
association in business in Nevada County
where the alleged cause of action ac-
crued and the alleged injury was in
fiicted, and that as such they were, under
Section 16 of Article XII. of the Constitu-
ton of California, liable to be sued IN the
County of Nevada.
1.-The only argument made against this
ruling" says the court, 'seems to be that
the complaint does not make it evident
that the association mentioned possessed
the powers and privileges of corpora
tion.
ut is evident that the words corpora
ton or association do not convey the
idea that the association meant was to
TO have any corporate powers or privi-
leges, and there is nothing else in the
section itself which gives color or makes
suggestion that the word association
is intended to signify anything else than
that word standing alone would ordina-
rily be taken to mean"
The order was affirmed.