Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-24


may furnish evidence OF the corpIe
dollctl they may indicate that
crime has 6een committed. but there
must ba nropf oeatho fact from some
source other than that OF the de-
fendantA AdmissionsE The court
cites other examples Ind then refer
in to the case under consideration
says: dIAying aside the evidence Fl
defendants admissions, there il moth
ing whatever II the record even point
ing toward the commission IL
crime (See also People VS. Jones 81
CAL SGT; State VS. Lamb % Mo- 219,
State We Guild 10 N. J. L.~1S0, fS Am.
Dec ANY,
In the case Of the State VS.. All
-Chdey, Ia New. 81, this Court held that
proof Of the corpus, deficit may be
established by circumstantial evil
dence. provided it is satisfactory"
| In the case before us we think there
was competent, evidence Independent
lof tn admissions of the defendant
tending to establish the corpus deficit
DR. Pache testified that on Saturday
four days after the alleged offense
was committed, he made an examina.
ton, of the person of. the complain
ant, Harriet Averill, who is shown
to be but slightly over fifteen years
of age; that he found that her hymn en
was infiamed. and at some time evil
IDENTIFY had been .lacerated; that the
young lady was rather hySterical and
would only permit peculiar inspection
and digital examination on account
of the extreme tenderness of the
parts. He further testified: From
the evidence found would state
that in all probability that Miss Aver
| ill az some time had had intercourse
with member of the opposite sex"
There was other testimony of the
witness relative to what appeared 10
| be blood stains upon the complain
ants skirt.
| The witness Hance, who saw the
complainant at noon of October 4th
! testified that she was then agitateti
and nervous and appeared to have
| been crying; that he observed marks
| nf violence unon her nose and uppe.
| lip; that she showed him marks up
on her wrists; also, mark on the
side CT her throat and that her throat
seemed to be swollen and red.
+ The witness Lovegrove, also. tes-
titled to observing on the evening vi
October 4th. a marx UPON the nose
and on the side nf compliments
throat, apparently scratches.
1t also may be gathered from thu
evidence that the defendant, a man
Of but twenty-one years of age, AMI
the complainant. his step-daughter
were at the time of the alleged Is
sault, occupying box car as homa :
| (the defendant being in the employ
OF the railroaO the defendants wife
mother of the complainant being 40
| sent, and the complainant being LEFT
in--defendant's care.
| We think these facts and circuln
! stances tended to prove the corpu.
deficit and were SUFFICIENT together
with the defendants admission to
Justify the magistrate in holding thu
! defendant to answer
We are not called upon. on this
hearing. to pass upon the sufficien.,y
| of this evidence to warrant the con
victiOn of the defendant, and upon
that question express no opinion. In
this connection it is proper to OBJ,
serve that a magistrate in holding a
| defendant to answer for a crime. is
\ not required to have submitted evi
dence sufficient t. establish the guilt
Of the person charged beyond rea
sQnable doubt. AS was said in "a .e
cent decision, In re Mitchell (Cai
App 50 Fac. 347. I'm order to hold
defendant and put him on his trial
the committing magistrate is not re
quired, to, find, EVIDENCE sufficient td
warrant a conviction. All that is re
/ quired is that there be a sufficient
! legal evidence. to make itaappear thit;
a public offeRse has been committed
and there is. sufficient cause to be
lieve the defendant guilt thereof
| The writ issued herein is dismissed
SO q Norcross. j. q
We concur: < go
Fitzgerald. C. ].
Talbot, j.
i Filed December Is. 1906.
4 w. G. Douglass. Clerk
By ]. W. Legate. Deputy.