Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1900-01-31
WIN. CALDER
MUST HANG
The Supreme Court Gives a
Unanimous DISTINGUISHING
ing the Lower Court
Same Judgment in the Hurst
Case From Dawson
County.

Helena, Jan. 29.-The Supreme
Court handed down its decision in
the William Calder ease today, al
firming the decision OF the lower
court. Justice Piggott wrote the
opinion which was concurred in by
his associates. He said: THE evil
dence against Calder connects him
with n murder 'as appalling and as
iiendish in its commission and its in
cidents, as was ever perpetrated In
Montana"
The court in dealing with the point
made by defendants counsel, that
the lower court should have charg-
ed the jury as to the weight OF the
evidence, said: although the prac-
tice mt the common law Is for the
court TO charge to the jury to view
the testimony OF an accomplish with
caution and to advise an acquittal
unless such testimony be corroborat-
ed in some material part by other
evidence, yet the cautionary and ad-
visory instructions may be given or
withheld, In the uncontrolled X
else OF an arbitrary discretion. This
rule OF the common law rests upon
the premise that the defendent may
he legally convicted Of crime upon
the unsupported testimony OF his
accomplish; the only exception to the
rule seems to be In a prosecution for
perjury or it's subornation, as was
declared In People vs.. Evans, 40 New
York, !.
"Section 2Os9, in express terms, re-
quires the accomplish to be corrobor-
ated by evidence from an independ-
ent source, which In itself tends to
connect the defendent with the COM
mission OF the crime; it does not I'M
less by Implication, require the pro-
duction OF such other evidence with
respect to the corpus deficit, the
evidence of the person killed or any
other particular. But whatever may
be the true construction Of this Sec
ton, we shall in this East assume
without deciding or intimating any
opinion upon the matter. that its
spirit requires the accomplice to he
corroborated by evidence which,
itself and independently Of his testi-
mony, tends not only to connect the
defendent with the commission Of
the offense, but also tolprove the
corpus deficit and establish the iden.
tity Of the person slain. The corpus
delicti IL the body orsubstance ot the
ofiense; this means, and has always
meant, the existence OF the criminal
fact. In prosecutions for murder
proof oi the corpus dellcti involves
the establishment Of the fact that Q
murder has been committed, but In
cl~udes,neither the identityoi thepersor
alleged to have been killed, nor the kill
ing by the person accused. Evidenc,
that n murd. has been done. wheth
err by defendant or another, Is proc
OF the body OF the oifense. Section
2 35S declares. among other things
, that no person may be convicted q
p murder or manslaughter unless tn
death Of the person alleged To hav
|, been killed be established by dlrec
proof. The testimony OF the accom-
@ pllce was direct evidence Of McRae'
v death; his testimony, however, wa
not, as we assume for the purpose
I Of his case, Of Itself sufficient to e'
tabllsh 1t. Confederation In tbl
particular. while necessary, need no
have been other than by Indirect @
clrcumstanial evidence Of the ideDt
, ~ Of the deceased ns McRne. III
true meaning ~ the statute III tn
: respect IL that. la the proof of Il
corpus dcllctl, there must he diret
: evidence establishing the death Of
per iun.- The fact that the dec 'ase
: Is the person alleged to have lee
killed may be proved circumstanti