Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-29

told tho defendant that he would
place him under arrest to appear be-
fore q court to answer the charge.
That Re asked the defendant what he
had TO say to the charge and that
the defendant --.l .he would answer
before a court CT when it was time
to make them"
This portion Of the testimony Of
the witness does not seem to have been
considered by cousel upon either side
in the presentation of this case as
standing in a different position from
the testimony relative to the state
ments of the complainant heretofore
referred to, made without the pres
ence of the defendant. We think,
however, it presents question worthy
Of careful consideration of court and
counsel. but as it has not been pre-.
scented in the briefs or arguments in
this matter. and as, in the view we
take of the case, the action of the
magistrate in holding the defendant
to answer, can be sustained upon
other portions of the testimony alone,
the question will not now be deter
mined
1t is urged by counsel for petitioner
that with the statements made by the
complainant excluded. there is no
competent proof Of the corpus deficit.
Two witnesses. c. o. Wilson and A.
N. Jones, the deputy sheriff, gave tes-
timony relative to an admission
made by the defendant while he was
being taken upon the train from the
place where the offense is alleged 10
have been committed to Hawthorne
That portion of the testimony of the
witness Wilson relative to the ad-
mission is as follows:
This defendant was brought into
the car at place called Shurz bet
ween here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and a young lady, I afterwards fouad
to be Harry Averill and they took pos
session of seat 1 had occupied up
to that time. l took the seat across
| the aisle. Seeing the man with
| bracelets on excited more or less cur
I iosity and when he came into the Cal
the young lady went in the car be-
hind and got another lady which
learned was her mother. The mother
/, came in and was talking to the de-
PENDANT. The mother asked him wha'
made him do it. The defendant says
| don't know. The mother was hys
| terical and she made the remark
ought to kill you. He assented. Ht
did yes. Well she says why don't
do it and repeated the remark severa
| times and about that time she tainted
| and swooned away"
| The testimony of the deputy sheriff
relative to this admission, was sub
/ stantialy to the same effect
Counsel Tor petitioner say in theil
| brief:
THE testimony of Wilson and Jones
deputy sheriff, as to the admissions o.
the defendant to his wife on a rail
road car after his arrest are clearly
| inadmfssib1e because there was no
proof that a crime had been commit
ted, and the corpus deficit cannot be
established by the confession of the
defendant"
1t will be conceded that the over
whelming weight Of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission Of
prisoner, not corbOrated by IN
dependent proof Of the corpus deficit,
will not justify conviction. 1t is not
requisite, however, that the crime
charged be conclusiveIy establish ed
by evidence Independent Of the con-
fession or admission. 1t is sufficient
if there be other competent evfdenc
tending to establish the fact of the
commission of a crime.
In people VS.. Bradley, Is Wend. IN.
" So, Nelson, C. j.. said: Full
proof of the body of the crime. the
corpus deficit, independently of the
Nc ut
the cases: and in many of them slight
corroborating facts were held suffici-
ent."
Va sos the Court said: 1--WE know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
the admissions of the defendant are
not competent eidence tending to
prove the corpus deficit. Such admis s.
sions may not be sufficient proof #
the corpus deficit, but they certainly
are competent evidence tending 70
prove that the crime charged has been
committed"
In the case of Matthews VS. State, 81
Ala, 1877; % Am Rep. 69S, where many
| authorities are cited and reviewed.
| the Court by Bricknell, C. ]. says:
! Nor must we be understood as affir-
ming that the proof of the corpus
deIict must be as full and conclusive
as would be essential if there was
| no confession to corroborate it. Eyi
| dence of facts and circumstances, al
tending the parucular offense. AMI
| usually attending the commission Of
| similar offense-or of facts to the
! discovery Of which the confession ha'
led, and which would not probably
have existed if the offense had no
| been committed-or of facts having {
just tendency to lead the MIND
to the conclusion that the OF
Tense has been committed
would be admissible to cor
rcborate the confession. The weigh
which would be accorded them, whel
connected with the confession. tn
jury must determine, under proper in
structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson. 10
Cal. 346, cited in petitioners brief
is in line with the authorities abov
Y = -