Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1905-05-30
Supreme Court Decisions.

The supreme court has handed down
two decisions in criminal cases. In
the case of the State of North Dakota
VS.. T. E. Johnson, an appeal from the
district, court of Billings county, the
Judgment Of the hover court is re-
versed new trial granted and the
case is remanded for further proceed
ings. Johnson was convicted of UNI.
lawfully killing horse, and sentenced
to one years imprisonment in the
state penitetntiary. Among the allie
cations of error assigned was the in
struction of the court to the Jury that
II they found a witness had sworn
falsely as to any material fact they
had the right to reject all of his testi-
mony except in so far as it was cor
FEDERATED. This the supreme court
holds to be reversible error. The
court holds also that it is error to in
struct the jury that in q case of
clrcmmstantial evidence it is not neces-
sary to establish the truth of each
link In the chain of evidence beyond
reasonable doubt The upper court
holds that the chain can be no strong
er than its weakest link and that this
instruction is prejudical. The sylla-
bus of the decision is as follows:
l. An instruction given to a jury
in the following language: IF YOU
find from the evidence that any wit
ness has sworn falsely as to any ma
ter1al fact or issue i'm this case, you
should receive the testimony of such
witness with caution. You have a
right to reject the statement of such
witnesses excepting in so far as thew
may be corroborated by other credible
evidence" is error warrantine the
granting of a new trial.
2. An instruction in the following
words: ION the other hand, the rule
OF law requiring the juror to be salts
lied OF the defendants guilt beyond a.
reasonable doubt in order to warrant
conviction, does not require THAT
you should be satisfied beyond a rea-:
sonable doubt of each link in the
chain Of circumstances relied upon tn.
establish the defendants guilt 1t is
suhcaent IT, taking the testimony to-
gether, you are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty" is erroneous State VS.. Young.
9 N. D. 165, followed.
Appeal from the district court Of
Billings county; W. H. Winchester,
Judge.
F. B. MORRILL, and c. E. Gregory, for
appellant.
Carl N. Erich, attorney general for
respondent.
Opinion by Morgan, C. ].
State VS.. Virgo. +.
In the case of the State VS.. George
l.. Virgo, appealed from the district
court of Bottineau county, the iudg-
ment of the lower court is reversed
and new trial ordered. This re-
versal is ordered upon an instruction
of the jury in a case charging the
selling of intoxicating liquors that Gin
toxicating liquors are those contain
ing any percentage OF alcohol, when
sold as beverage" The court holds
this instruction to be error in the fol-
lowing syllabus:
1. The definition of Intoxicating
liquors. contained in section 1898,
Revised Codes of 1899, includes liquors
or liquids "that will produce intoxica-
tion,'' and not those which will not
intoxicate. It was error therefore to-
instruct the jury in this case that "any
liquors which contain any percentage
of alcohol, if sold os beverage" are
Intoxicating liquors under our law.
2. To sustain plea of former &C.
quittal it must appear that the offense
for which the defendant was acquitted
was the same offense as that for which
he is BEND tried. /
Appeal from the district court of
Bottineau county; L. J. Palda, Judge.
V. B. Noble, E. B. Goss. H. S. Blood
and G. A. Bangs, for appellant.
A. G. Burr, states attorney of Bot
tineam county, for respondent. j
Opinion by Young, J.