Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-31

~ fe11Sh es11ence 81 the cosp =
eellol may indicate that Z
crime hno boen committed. but there
mutt - nrnof of the fact from some
source other than that Of the de-
|fendautt. admissions The court
cttes other examples and then refer.
In to the case under Consideration
says: Laying aside the evidence #
defendants admissions, there Is moth
Ing whatever in the record even point
ing toward the commission. Of =
crime" (See also People vs. Jones 81
Cal. sgt; State vs Lamb % Mo. 2I9,
State W Guild 10 N. J. e. 180, rs Am
Dec. 414.) z
In the case II the State va AZ
Chuey, IA New. 81, this Court held, thoi
proof Of the corpus defle&a may ~
established by circumstantial. 8: )iE
dence. provided 1t is satisli ckoF
In the case before us we think te
was competent evidence indepen mt
of tn admissions of the defen0Sbt
tending to establish the corpus deitcfi.
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 IN
was infiamed and at some time evil
IDENTIFY had been Iacerated: 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 I would state
that in all probability that Miss Aver-
i'll 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.
The witness Hance, who saw the
complainant at noon of October 4th,
testified that she was then agitatcd
and nervous and appeared to have
been crying; that he observed marks
of violence upon her nose and uppe,
lip; that she showed him marks M
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, ties.
titled to observing on the evening u
October 4th. q marx upon the nose
and on the side af complainant's
throat, apparently scratches.
1t also may be gathered from ths
| evidence that the defendant, a mar
of but twenty-one years of age, an
the complainant, his step-daughter
were at the time of the alleged rs
| sault, occupying a box car as HON
| (the defendant being in the emplo,
of the railroadJ the defendants wife
mother of the complainant being ali
! sent, and the complainant being LEI
in defendants care.
| We think these facts and circuIn
stances tended to prove the corpu
deficit and were sufficient together
with the defendants admission to
!; Justify the magistrate in holding tn.
defendant to answer.
| We are not called upon. on this
/ hearing, to pass upon the sufficient,
of this evidence to warrant the con
viction of the defendant, and upon
that question express no opinion. Ii
this connection it is proper to oh
serve that magistrate in holding Z
defendant to answer for a crime. i:
not required to have submitted evi
dence sufficient to establish the gull
of the person charged beyond rea
Sensible doubt AS was said in a .e
cent decision, In re Mitchell Zeal
App 80 Pac. BAT, ''Iu order to hold
defendant and put him on his trial
the committing magistrate is not re
CURED to find evidence sufficient ft
| warrant conviction. All that is re
quired is that there be a sufhcien
legal evidence to make it appear tha'
"a public offense has been committed
| and there is sufficient cause to- be
lieve the defendant guilty. thereof
The writ issued herein is dismissed
| Norcross. ].
| We concur: -.
/ E;f1oaraJd n