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

may furnish evidence of the corpls
deficit they may indicate that a
crime has been committed. but there
source other than that of the de-
PENDANTS admissions? The court
cites other examples and then refer
in to the case under consideration
says: Laying aside the evidence Of
defendants admissions, there is moth
ing whatever in the record even point
ing toward the commission of a
crime" (See also People VS. Jones 81
Cal SGT: State VS. Lamb % Mo. 219,
State VS. Guild 10 N. j. L. $50, rs Am
Dec. 414.)
In, the case Of the State VS. All
Chuey, IA New 81, this Court held that
proof Of the corpus deficit may be
established by circumstantial evi
dence. provided it is satisfactory"
In the case before us we think there
was competent evidence Independent
Of tn admissions of the defendant
tending to establish the corpus deficit
DIR. 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 an
was infiamed and at some time evil
IDENTIFY had been lacerated; that the
young lady was rather hysterical and
would only permit ocular inspection
and digital examination on account
of the extreme tenderness of the
parts He further testified From
the evidence I found l would state
that in all probability that Miss Aver
ill at some time had had intercourse
with a 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.
complainant at noon of October 4th,
testified that she was then agitated
and nervous and appeared to have
been crying; that he observed marks
of violence upon her nose and upper
lip; that she showed him marks ~
on her wrists; also, mark on the
side of her throat and that her throat
seemed to be swollen and red.
The witness Lovegrove, also, tes-
titled to observing on the evening Of
October 4th. marx upon the nose
and on the side af complainant
throat, apparently scratches.
1t also may be gathered from the
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 as
sault, occupying box car as home
(the defendant being in the employ
of the railroad) the defendants wife,
mother of the complainant being alb
sent. and the complainant being left
in defendants care.
We think these facts and circum.
stances tended to prove the corpus
deficit and were sufficient together
with the defendants admission to
justify the magistrate in holding the
defendant to answer.
We are not called upon, on this
hearing, to pass upon the sufficiency
Of this evidence to warrant the con-
viction of the defendant, and upon
that question express no opinion. In
this connection it il proper to OBJ
serve that q magistrate in holding a
defendant to answer for a crime. is
not required to have submitted evil
dence sufficient to establish the guilt
of the person charged beyond a rea-
s0nabie doubt. As was said in a ie-
cent decision, In re Mitchell Zeal.
App 81 PAc. 347, I'm order to hold
defendant and put him on his trial.
the committing magistrate is not re-
Quired to find evidence sufficient 10
warrant q conviction. All that is re-
quired is that there be a sufficient
legal evidence to make it appear that
a public offense has been committed
and there IL sufficient cause to be-
lieve the defendant guilty thereof
Tie writ issued herein is dismissed.
Norcross. ].
We concur:
Fitzgerald, c. J.
Talbot, J.
Filed December 10. 1905.
W. G. Douglass. Clerk
By J. W. Legate, Deputy.