Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-02-18

be sufficient, IL it can be understood
therefrom: First-Tat it is entitled in
a court having authority to receive 1t,
though the name Of the court be not
accurately set forth. Second-That it
was found by frand jury Of the dis
tricts in which the court was held
Fourth-That the offense was commit
ted at the same place within the juris-
dictiOn of the court"
Sec. 1909. mo Indictment shall be
deemed insufficient, nor shall the trial,
judgment, or other proceeding thereon,
be affected, by reason Of any defect
or imperfection in matters OF form,
which shall not tend to the prejudice
Of the defendant"
Sec. 1910. Neither ;1resulC ption Of
law, nor matters OF which judicial
notice is taken, need be stated in IN
indictment"
If the indictment. were net suffci-
ent at Common Law these statutory
p, DIVISIONS would control. and cure the
slight Irregularities to which objection
is urged. AS said in State vs. GOLFER
! II New. 2S6. the ancient rules, rela-
tive to the strictness to be observed
in the language Of indictments, have
been superseded by the wise and lib
eral provisions Of the codes. State VS..
MILAN New. 465 and case- cited.
During the empanelllng OF the jury
one Andrew johnson was drawn and
examined on his weir dire, and in ans
! w"r to questions by defendant said he
knew nothing Of the facts Of the case.
md had not formed nor expressed
arv opinion, wI,nn he was passed by
tho defnntfant The State then asked
him if he had CIV conscientious scru-
MOS against infiicting the death pen
''tv. He ren!io1 that he prefC-rae not
to sit as a juror. as he would hate to
veto for the death penalty. but if the
OXIDE rce warranted such a verdict he
could vote fer it. The court asked
him if he had anv conscientious scru-
r'es against capital punishment He
replied that he had not, but that he
preferred not to vote tor it, and this
was the only reason he had for not
wishing to sit rs juror. Thereupon
the State challenged the juror upon
the ground that from the condition of
his mind as disclosed by his answer
it would be at disadvantage if he
were retained. The defendant ira
versed and the court sustained the
challenge. At the time the jury was
completed and sworn, the defendant
had several peremptCry challenges re
> naming AS held in the State VS.
Kelly l New. 226 and State VS.. Lar
kin, II New. 315, he is not entitled
as matter of right and for reversa
to have any particular juror retain
ed, and the allowing of challenges fol
implied bias is not subject to review
II the trial court is in doubt as tt
his qualifications. it is better to eX
cuse him, whether the condition G
his mind seems to lead him to fave
the defendant or the State, and re
l CARELESS of by whom he is challenged
I to the end that a perfectly free an;
l fair jury may be obtained and tn
: risk, trouble and expense Of a nev
8 trial avoided.
y We quote the record in relation t.
e an exception taken by the defendan
}. to the overriding of an objection t
I q uuo,!iol asked Mr.. Dempsey, a reg
;. ularly licensed and practising phys
|, clan and surgeon, who made an Al
Y topsy on the remains OF the deceased
T and had described the wound and hoS