Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1896-09-02

half, upon the charges of assault, and the
counsel for the people upon cross exami-
nation put questions to him as to other
alterations in which he had been en-
gagged, and other assaults committed by
him, and it was held that there was no err
ror in such ruling.
In Carroll vs.. the State, "a s.. W. Rep,
100, it was decided that, for the purpose
of impeaching witness, he may be asked
if he is not under indictment for theft
Citations Might BE Multiplied.
We might multiply citations to the
same effect, but will conclude with the
announcement that in the case before
cited, People VS.. Casey, ~ N. Y, 1893, it
was declared that the extent to which
such an examination may go to test the
witness credibility is largely in the dis
erection of the trial court, and as we do not
perceive that the Judge of the court below
committed any improperly in his cleo
ton in this instance we will forbear fur
Their consideration of the subject.
1t will be sufficient to say in reference
to the alleged errors of permitting
Ike NOVEL; to detail an alleged converse
tion with Thomas B. Catron, one of
counsel for the defendants, in reference
to the testimony of said Novel; in this
case, and in allowing Luiz Gonzales to
do the same as to an interview between
him and Charles A. Spiess, another at
torney for the accused, that we recognize
that counsel occupy such relation to
their clients as to justify disclosure of
their action in the interest of such clients
and for their benefit at their trial.
Many other errors are alleged which we
do not deem it necessary to consider, and
it may be remarked that in the multi
tude of assignments there appears al
most lack of confidence in the substan-
tial merits of the appeal, which impress
sion is not diminished by the technical
character of the complaints mainly relied
on in the oral argument.
Says the supreme court of the United
States, in Grayson VS.. Lynch, 1853 U. 5.
1856: sit is to be regretted that defend
ants found it necessary to multiply their
assignments to such an extent, as there
is always possibility, in the very abun-
dance of alleged errors, that substan-
tial one may be lost sight Of" This is a
comment which courts have frequent oc
oasion to make and one which is too fire.
quently disregarded by the profession.
| Having reached the conclusion that
none of the errors alleged by the accused
to have been committed by the trial
court were material, and being impressed
that the instructions given are fair,
clear and comprehensive enunciation of
the principles by which the jury should
have been guided in their consideration
of the evidence, we do not discover any
ground for reversal of the action of the
lower court.
The evidence in the record is abundant
to establish that the accused, in pursuance
of diabolical conspiracy of long stand
ing, unlawfully, feloniously, willfully, and
purposely shot Francisco Chavez with a
deliberate intention to take his life, and
the judges of the facts wisely found that
there should not be by their default any
escape for the perpetrators from the
penalty for the unprovoked and cold
blooded assassination.
This case may, as to this territory, be
pronounced a cause celebre, from the
prominence of the deceased, from the
notoriety of the criminals, from the COM
plication and mystery of the circumstan-
ces, from the delay in procuring a jury,
from the time, nearly six weeks, and the
money, am bunting to thousands of dol
lars, consumed in the trial, from the ex-
tent and the intensity of the public inter
est and from the exceptional skill and
zeal displayed by counsel in it's manage
ment, and it, would be extraordinary if
such litigation under such circumstances
did not develop difficulties formidable
even to court of large experience. We
are much pleased to say that the presiding
Judge, though but recently elevated to the
bench at the date of this trial, with ad-
mirable discrimination and commendable
firmness held the scales of Justice.
In conclusion we hereby affirm the
judgment of the lower court in this case.
THOMAS SMITH,
N. G. COLLIER, A. j. Chief Justice.
GIDEON D. BANTz, Al.