The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-05
STATE SUPREME COURT
A New Lease Of Life for Martin
Peel.
IS GIVEN A NEW TRIAL
Burden of Establishing Defense by
Preponderance o, Evidence Should
Not Be Cast Upon Defendant.
Error in Instructions.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena, Dec. 4.-The hanging of Mar
tin Peel, convicted of killing William
Ennis of Ennis, Madison county, at
Virginia City, June 49, 1898, will not
come off as scheduled-not for the pres
ent. The supreme court to-day granted
the condemned man a new trial. Peel
was convicted Dec. 16, last year, and
March 10, last, the lower court over
ruled the motion Of Peeps attorneys for
a new trial.
From this ruling the defendant APP
pealed. The. Peel case has attracted
considerable attention because of the
prominence of the man he killed and
the fact that both were well-known
old timers, who had been friendly for
years UP to about two years prior to.
the killing.
Chief Justice Brantly wrote the opin-
ion for the supreme court that reverses
the case. The court reviews the case
at some length, treating the various
contentious raised by the defense. A
point raised by Peeis counsel was that
error was committed In the impaneling
the state to exercise it's fourth chal-
lenge against a man named Conner,
who was in the box when, few min
utes before, the state had waived its
fourth challenge, but the higher court
contends that was not error. Objec-
ton was made to a ruling Of the court
directing witness named Riblett, who
was testifying IS to what he consids
cred was the mental condition at tho
his opinion formed up to and including
the time he last saw the defendant.
The defense claimed that the witness
should have stated what he consid-
cred was tie mental condition at the
time of the shooting. The higher court,
however says that the district court
was right because the non-expert wit
ness should always speak as to the time
of his observation. Another objection
as to hypothetical question asked an
expert witness was not considered we'll
taken The balance of the opinion deals
with the objections to the instructions,
and especially with reference to the in
sanity plea.
The instructions Of the court, to
which the defense raised this leading OBJ
lection and upon which the case was
reversed, had to do with the burden of
proof under the insanity plea. The
court instructed the jury that the law
presunles every man to be sane and
responsible for his acts until the con-
trary ID shown by evidence, and when
insanity is set UP the burden Of the
proof IS upon the defendant to show by
q preponderance Of evidence that he
was affected by insanity at the time
Of the act to such an extent that he
did not know that 1t was wrong to COM
NIT such an act: that he was not NEIL
tally capable Of choosing to do or not
to do the act or acts constituting such
crime and OF governing. his conduct In
accordance with such choice; and that
If the Jury, upon all the evidence in
the case, entertained q reasonable doubt
as to the sanity OF the defendant at the
time Of the crime, they must acquit.
Following this instruction the court
added paragraph defining "prepon-
deranee Of evidence" as applicable to
civil cases, thus emphasizing the me-
cessity Of the defendant to sustain his
defense by preponderance of the evil
dence.
ror," says the court. "The instruction
is inconsistent with itself in that, after
telling the jury that the burden is upon
the defendant to establish insanity by
preponderance of evidence, it again
tells them to acquit him If they have a
reasonable doubt upon the whole case.
1t also conflicts in this regard with
other instructions as to reasonable
doubt. 1t is wrong in principle, be-
cause, under our view Of the law, the
| burden Of establishing this defense by
preponderance of the evidence is
never cast upon the defendant"
1t was also claimed the court erred
in the instructions as to the heat of
passion with reference to the crime
of manslauehter The court says that
while the instruction was the same as
incorrectly given in the case of the
state against Sloan, appealed from CAL
latin county, no harm resulted since,
from the verdict of the jury, 1t is evil
dent the jury did not consider it, hav-
Ing found the defendant guilty OF MUIR
der in the first degree.
The Judgment that Daniel Band
mann secured in the district court OF
Missoula county against A. j. Davis,
! trustee, for $1,000 for an alleged breach
| of a water right contract, will stand,
! as the court affirmed the judgment in
| q brief opinion.
The third case decided was that Of
| ]. B. Haggin VS.. Raymond and Mary
Sale, appealed from Deer Lodge county.
| This involved the Glover water right.
| The lower court found for the defend
ants and the plaintiff appealed. The
chief Justice did not hear the appeal,
as it was from his ruling when a DIS
| trict Judge. The judgment Is affirmed,
! The court comedies with the ruling OF
| the lower court that the defendants
were the owners Of the right to use
| the water by reason Of the abandon
| ment Of the plaintiffs right. The court
| does not consider well taken certain
| errors alleged in the instructions to the
jury.
| Upon motion Of the attorney general
the setting of the case of the stats
against Lucy. appealed from Silver
Bow county. which was set Tor hearing
Jan 49, was Cancelled because OF GER
tain irregularities in the record.