Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-28

that she said it was true. That he
told the defendant that he would
place him under arrest to appear be-
fore q court to answer the charge
That he asked the defendant what he
had to say to the charge and that
the defendant said "he would answer
before 2 court or 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-
sented 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
ether 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 young lady, afterwards fouad
to be Harry Averill, and they took pos
session of a seat l had occupied up
to that time. l took the seat across
the aisle. Seeing the man with
bracelets on excited more or less cur
iosity and when he came into the car
the young lady went in the car be-
hind and got another lady which 4
learned was her mother. The mother
came in and was talking to the de-
PENDANT. The mother asked him what
made him do it. The defendant saws
| don't know. The mother was hys-
terical and she made the remark l
ought to kill you. He assented He
did yes. Well she says why don't I
do it and repeated the remark several
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 their
brief:
deputy sheriff, as to the admissions of
the defendant to his wife on a rail-
road car after his arrest are clearly
inadmissible 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"
It will be conceded that the over
whelming weight Of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission CT
a 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 conclusively established
by evidence Independent Of the con-
fession or admission. It is Sufficient
il there be other competent evfdenc
tending to establish the fact Of the
commission of q crime
In people VS.. Bradley. 1e Wend. IN.
Y.) s., Nelson, G. ]. said: Full
proof OF the body Of the crime. the
corpus deficit, independently Of the
confession is not required by any OF
the cases; and in many of them slight
corroborating facts were held sufiici-
emit"
In the case Of state vs Hall. 81 w.
Va sos the Court said: I'VE know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
the admissions of the defendant are
not competent eidence tending to
prove the corpus deficit. Such admi 8
sions may not be-suflicient proof 4
the corpus deficit, but they certainly
are competent evidence tending -
prove that the crime charged has been
committed"
In the case of Matthews VS. State, st
Ala, 1877; % Am. Rep. 69S. where many
authorities are cited and reviewed,
the Court by Bricknell. C. ]. says:
Nor must we be understood as afr
ming that the proof of the corpus
deficit must be as full and conclusive
as would be essential if there was
no confession to corroborate it. Evi
| dence of facts and circumstances, at
tending the particular offense, AM
usually attending the commission o
similar offense-or Of facts to thu
discovery of which the confession ha
led, and which would not prObabl.
have existed if the offense had no
been committed-or of facts having
just tendency to lead the min
to the conclusion that the OF
Tense has been COMMITTEES
would be admissible to COZ
roborate the confession. The weigh
which would be accorded them, whe
connected with the confession, til
jury must determine, under proper il
structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson. II
kCal. BAG, cited in petitioners brie