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

before giving the defendant
the opportunity to produce his proffered
evidence. But in this case the defend
ants witness, Emanuel, had testified
fully as to the inducement offered to the
and clearly and definitely
fixed the date thereof as Saturday. the
10th day of February, the day after the
alleged confession to Leeper. 1t was not
claimed that any mistake had been made
as to the date of said inducements by
Emanuel. 1t was not proposed to shsw
by any other evidence than that given al
ready by Emanuel that the said induce
ments were given prior to the confession
made to Leeper. Indeed it appears that
the defendant had no other evidence to
offer, for subsequently Emanuel was re-
called by the defendant and testified as
before as to the date Of said inducements
and did not testify to any other induce
ments as having been offered to defend
ant at any other time. Defendant pro-
duced no ether witness on the subject al
though the court informed the defendant
after Leeper had testified to the said con-
versation of the evening Of the 9th, that
he could then introduce any evidence he
might have concerning the matter. There
was nothing in the former or latter evi-
dence of Emanuel, or any other evidence
in the case, tending to show that the con-
fessions made to Leeper on the 9th OF
February as he testified were subsequent
to any Inducements held out to the de-
PENDANT. 1t seems that counsel had in
mind that by the testimony which Eman
uel had given it appeared that the al
| legged confession was made subsequent te
SAID alleged inducements, to which
! Emanuel had testified, while the cour
was satisfied to the contrary. 1t clearl,
appears that the court was correct, TIN
earnest contention Of counsel that tn,
court erIed with respect to the admission
OF the alleged conversation had betwee.
Leeper and the defendant on the evsnin,
of the 9th II February is without merit
TIE ju,y. Chnl!engs. Enoch Nor
rell was challenged by defend ut 10
cause, challenge denied and the ruin;
assigned AS error. "In a challenge fl
implied bias one or more Of the cause
stated III section three hundred an.i t,,r
must be alleged. III a chti-l.ge for az
tual bias, it must be alleged that H.
juror is bia~ed against the parry cha
lenging." (ton. Laws. sec. 45U.:) Tni
was not done, and consequently tn
challenge was insufficient to raise an
point for the consideration Of this cour
(State V. Vaughan, ?. ,.ev. -: State
Gray. - New. 2l2; State V. Raymond,
New. IS; State Y. Squires, New. 225.)
Ia State V. Chapman, 8 \ev. 300. it W.
held that when the only specii.c..tl II
grounds of challenge to a juror Wa u,
cause it was entirely INSULT lent. All
that on appeal no objection w"uli he el
tertained. The statute and the above q,
thorties sustain the ruling of the coul
denying the challenge to juror Morrell.
The defendant challenged J. +. Et
and \. u. could, each upon the groun
that the juror had formed an unqualifit
opinion concerning the guilt or innocen'
Of the defendants. Each challenge WI
denied and the ruling assigned as erro
: The answers Of MIR. Eide to questions pl
. show that he had not formed any opinie
, whatever as to the guilt or innocence
. the defendant. while some answers
iquestions by Defendants counsel tend
show hat he had formed an opinion &C
corning the guilt or innocence of the d
fcnttan, from what he had heard in la
upon the street. Mr.. Gould testified III
he had formed an opinion concerning Il
guilt or Innocence of the defendant fro
What he had read in the newspape,
b that he would toe wholly governed by Il
y evidence given in the case and inStru
e tinns OF the court, and disregard al
+. opiuion he may have formed from new
5 paper accounts. Each of them te>tit
= that he had no prejudice OF bias FIR
!, against the Defendant and that he kne
4. of no reason why he could not give I
defendant a lair triai.
In State v. ,IcCtoar, Ii New 50, The Goa
after an extended consideration Of ii
question of the competency of trial juru
and the citation OF numerous aut.,,h,
tiles, said: Now, it does not follow fro
h. anything we have said, or from any
y the opinions we have quoted, tina, /
q mere is,ct The arc. nat. formed or e
pres So! IA opinion upon the guilt or
nocence CT the defend mt necessaii
, render ..in an incompe ut Juror. As
matter of ..,ct, il is well known That
this enlightened age, where ra;lroa
possibilities and the telegraph o, Ell
every enae Of communication, a