Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1903-02-18
Continued from I'd page.


relative positions of the parties at the
the time the shot was fired. as con- |
clusiOn based on his scientific know
ledge as supplied to the appearance of
the wound. 1t is generally held that
physicians may give their opinion as
to the cause, effect aud consequences
OF wounds, the course of the bullet,
and the distance from which the shot
was fired. LawsOn's Expert and Opin-
ION Ev. 10S See Long VS.. Travellers
1ns. Co. IS N. w. "a. In Commonwealth
VS.. Piper 12O Mass. 19O and People vs.
Schmidt 1913 N. Y. SIS, medical ex-
perts, we're allowed to testify that
the injury could not have been pro-
duced by single blow On a trial
for murder, Davis VS.. State 80 Md. 81,
it -r"s held proper to ask physician
whether from ''the nature of the
wound and fracture, such wound and
fracture could have been, or were
likely to have been been inflicted by
the deceased accidentally falling into
a sink. and Commonwealth VS.. Lencx,
J Brewst. 249 surgeon was allowed
to testify as to whethe: if the deceased
had been in STOPPING position
ut the time he was struck the bullet
would have taken the course it did.
The court gave the jury a long and
able charge fully defining murder in
the different degrees, manslaughter,
Justihcable homicide, the ingredients
OF self defense, reasonable doubt. the
eject Of intOXication, the credibility
TO which witnesses are entitled and
the various verdicts which
they might ind under the different
conclusions that could lie drawn from
the evidence
In part they were told: If you be-
iave from the evidence and from all
the acts and circumstances in the case,
that the defendant had reasonable
ground for experimenting a design to
do him great bodily harm, by the de-
ceased and that there was reasonable
ground for believing the danger immi-
mont that such design would be ac-
cCmpllshed, and he acted upon such
appearances and killed Angelo Zari to
save his own life or to save himself
from receiving great bodily harm, the
killing would be self-defense
IF, upon a review of the testimony
there is reasonable doubt remaining
as to the guilt CT defendant, he is en-
titled to the benefit of such a doubt
by an acquittal
"You are made the sole judges Of the
testimony and the weight to be given
to the same; and you must therefrom
determine all questions of fact in.
vOlved. 1t is your province to award
such credence and weight to the state
ments of the various witnesses as in
your judgment they may be entitled
to.
In determining the credibility of
the witnesses examined it is your
right to take into consideration their
interest or feeling in the result of the
subject matter, their appearance or
department while being examined, the
of their statements as compared with
other testimony given, or facts es
tablished, and their opportunities fol
observation or knowledge of the mat
tiers to which they testify; their friend
ly or unfriendly feelings toward either
side; how far they might have been
cOntradicted, etc. 1t is a general
principle Of law that II a witness has
willfully sworn falsely with respect
to a material matter, you are at lib
erty to disregard the testimony o.
such witness.
in connection with the law as giver
you and therefrom reach a decision
In doing SO you must consider, withou
fear, favor or affection, bias or preju
dice or sympathy, compare, weigh and
consider all the facts and circumstan
ces shown by the evidence with tn,
sole, fixed and steadfast purpose O
doing equal and exact justice between
the State Of Nevada and the defend
ant at the bar"
The instructions quoted are exam
pies of the manner in which the
charge covered the other points of law
applicable to the case. 1t is claimed
that the District Judge erred in refus
ing certain instructions offered BY
the defendant, of which the following
are illustrative:
"First-Gentleman. the defendan
claims in this case that the killing o
Zari on the evening Of November Sd
was justifiable. That at the time b
Ared the fatal shot, he, in good faith
honestly believed that he was in in
minent danger Of loss Of life or grea
bodily harm; and it is for you gentle
men of the jury, to carefully conside
all the evidence. facts and circumstar
csc of the case as proven before 20,
rs to this contention Of defendant, an
If. therefrom, you have REASONABLE
doubt as to whether the killing wa
justifiable, or not. the defendant is er
titled to the benefit Of that doubt b
an acquittal.
"Second-1t appears from tn
evidence that on the evening of NJ
vember 3. 1902. defendant and deceat
ed were in the saloon of Bonassi. Tha
while the deceased voluntarily apprt
ached defendant while talking to al
other person, and demanded of defent
ant that he pay for a horse; the Col
versation became quite animated, tn
defendant being the sole perosn t
whom deceased was talking; deceased
during the quarrel, threatened to brea
the neck of defendant, and If he wer
not ashamed, he would slap defent
ants face. and sworn evidence tina
prior to the shot, deceased asaulte
defendant and struck him with hi
Aat. that at the time defendant wa