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

ne ucienualt asked 1of several IN
structions by which, doubtless, the jury
would have been led to believe that it
was incum bent on the State to show the
ownership of said company otherwise
than by its possession and occupancy of
said store rom. These instructions
were refused, which is assigned as error.
And an instruction was offered to the eff
feet that unless the jury found from the
evidence beyond reasonable doubt that
the Nevada Hardware and Supply Com
pany was a corporation duly organized
and existing they must acquit the de-
PENDANT. That instruction was refused
and error assigned. In view of the au-
thorities cited above we do not think the
court erred in refusing to give either of
said instructions.
The court refused the sixth instruc-
ion offered by the defendant and this is
claimed to be error. The instruction
twas, in part: 1.-The jury are the sole
judges of the facts, and every fact essen
tial to the proof of the offense alleged
= - The instruction is endorsed:
Refused for the reason that the same
WAS given in substance 80 The
court had stated to the jury clearly and
specifically each fact essential to be
proven by the State: that unless the jury
believed from the evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt each of such facts they
must acquit the defendant; that nothing
was to he presumed or taken 10y implica-
ton against the defendant; that the law
presumed him Innocent of the c"ime
: charged until he was proven guilty be-
yond reasonable doubt by competent
evidence; that if the eyi ience in the case
left upon the minds of the jary any
reasonable doubt Of defendants guilt
the law made it their duty to acquit him
) that the jury must determine the ques
: ton of his guilt from ALI the evidence ir
the case: that unless the jury could say
after careful consideration of all tht
evidence in the case that every eSsentia
4 fact was proved beyond q reasonable
. doubt, they should find verdict Of no
I guilty.
! The instructions given BIZ TIE court W
think fully informed the jury as to thei
: duty and province i'll respect to matter:
' of fact.
/ We think the said sixth instruct.o
: was calculated to mislead the jury III.
e the belief that they were the judges as t.
4 what were the essential facts to- be prove
n by the State.
= The seventh instruction offered by d,
PENDANT was to the effect, that before tn
: jury could find a verdict of guilty, it Wa
$ the duty of tie State to show to show b'
y yond reasonable doubt each Of certai
i, propositions, to-wit: j. III:
y, the defendant broke and entered tha
e store room'' The court modified the il
: struction by striking out the WORD
T "broke and" This action Of the court
!. assigned as error.
Under the statute there is but on
species of burglary, the essential dehn
ton of which is theenterlng ia the nlgl
. time any dwelling house, or tent, or al
=" other house or building whatever, or al
'e vessel, water craft, railroad, passenger.
II freight car with intent etc. Estate
nc Watson, II New. 30) The court did II
u err in modifying said instruction.
1t is contend ed that instructions No.
y Is and 16 are so conflicting and self co
'' Trajectory as to required reversal OF t
judgment. instruction No. IA, given
request OF the District Attorney, was
= the effect that, if the jury believe fire
the evidence that the defendant made t
confessions as alleged and attempted
be proved in the case, they should tr'
and consider such confessions as tn
would any other testimony.
BY instruction No. l5 the court charg
that the confessions Of prisoner out
court are doubtful species OF evldel
and should be acted upon with great c;
&c ton and unless they are supported
some other evidence tending to sh
that the prisoner committed the crll
they are rarely sufficient to warrant
conviction"
1t may be that confessions are dou
full species of evidence and shou III
that reason be acted upon with great G.
ton, yet such conclusion is On!y an