Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1900-09-20

court: I'm regard to instructions as to |
verbal admissions and confessions there !
is much conflict of authority, but the |
weight Of authority, it is believed, is to
the effect that the trial court should not
make any statement which will tend to
disparage the value of such evidencen
I'll Ency. Pl. 4 Pr. 333-4-and notes.)
We do not think instruction No. Is
given at request Of the district attorney
is subject to criticism. Counsel quotes
only a part Of . clause thereof in his
brief. The instl uction as given was cor
rect. We are of opinion that No. IA was
and should not have been given. But it
was in favor of the defendant and could
not have misled the jury to his prejudice,
besides it was given at his request. Ql
Ency. Pl. & Pr. 149 and cases cited.)
! Against the objection of the defendant
certain evidence of witness Hayes was
admitted by the court for certain pur-
poses stated by the court. At that time
in the midst of the trial the court in re-
spouse to verbal request Of defendants
counsel stated that it would properly
; lliIll InS CIV IOcHcc ny It's
In instructing the jury on the case the
court failed to give such instruction.
+ doubtless through inadvertance. No
such. instruction was presented to the
court, no suggestion was made to the
court in respect to said evidence except
as above stated, doubtless, through in
advertance Of defendants counsel.
IF the defendant desires the court to
charge the jury upon any given point, it
is his right and his business to prepare
such instruction and ask the court to
give it," Estate V. Smith, 10 New. 1861
The defendant presented great num-
Der of instructions. INT none limiting
said evidence. 1t has been held in num-
erous cases that in the absence of a spe-
ctic request error cannot be assigned fer
the courts failure to limit the effect Of
! evidence admitted for certain purpose.
/ Oh Ency Fl. & Pr. 225 and Do, note ?:
People V. All Yute, 80 Cal 6l3; People v.
Collins As Cal. 2777; People V. Gray, 66 Cal.
216; ii Ency. Supra 2l7 Ct seq.)
The State called John Hayes, deputy
sheriff. to prove certain alleged confess
siens or admissions of the defendant al
legged to have been made to the witness.
Testimony as to what defendant had said
was excluded by the court as being in
admissible from certain alleged facts tes-
titled to by defendants brother, bat he
was permitted to testify to a certain act
of the defendant, n It is, that the defend
ant Shove him the place where certain
goods were, which the witness found
concealed at the place pointed out, and
which we're proved 10y other witnesses
to be the property of the Nevada Hard
ware and Supply Company, and were
proven to have been felIOn!ausly taken
from the room described in the indict-
ment on the night of the alleged bur
glary 1t is claimed that the admission
OF the testimony as to what the defend
aut did as aforesaid was reversible error.
But we think the evidence was properly
: admitted. Il Greeni. Ev. Sec. 23l; People
V. Ah HI, 20 Cal. LIS; Deathridge v. State,
l Sneed. So: Bennett 4 Heard Leading
Grim. Cases, tI5: Berry v. I. S, Colo
: lSG; ) Ency. Of Law, 4Sl ard note %
The State called deputy constable
Leeper to prove certain alleged contes-
sions and admissions made to him by the
!, defendant. The witness was asked te
Z; state whether or not he had any CONVEX
: sation with the defendant on the 9Th OF
q lrih OF February. Defendants counse
y objected to the question upon tn,
e ground it appears from the evidence
Il which has al ready been produced tina
that was subsequent 10 the time OF TIT
II alleged conversation with his brother
and that Mr.. Leeper was the officer tina
e had held out the inducement as testified
II by EMANUEL The cou.t replied: Z"
; don't think it is shown that it was sub
SEQ uent ta that conversation.
II Emanuel Simas, defendants brother
% had testified that deputy sheriff Haye
o and deputy constable Leeper had said
II him that it weuld be better Ior the dt
fendanl to tell all about the thing; to Civ
t. out the knives and raZors anu othe
lie things, that the trial would he lighter &c
as him, etc. He les flied that he had lol
e the defendant at a certain time name
in what these officers had said. On this te
at tin.cny the preferred evidence OF NJ
At Have, as 10 defendants alleged COME
n sion 10 him was excluded.
is II was the above evidence OF Emanu
Is that counsel referred TO in his ODjectl.
to the question put to Mr.. Leeper. III
le examination ct Witness Leeper wa, co
H. tinued by the district attorney. He tie
MT titled to a certain conversation he III
ny with the defendant on the morning
ny the 9th day of February, aud that he hs
or another conversation ON the evening
V. the same day at seven O'Clock. He W
ot asked to state what the latter convers
ton was To this counsel objected al
IL, stated: II also desire to offer proof
IN this time to snow that this coaversatit
ne was after the inducements had been he
at out to defendant The inducements
10 ferred to were those testified to by Ema
DIN uel given above.
ne by the court to Leeper: What q
10 did YOU say this was?" Answer. "'Tl
eat was on the evening of the 9th (Februal
icy about seven O'clock" BY the cou
..rbo offer at this time will be denie(