Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-09-09

been taken tie d. ~ sEtsf welsh dfs1
and were not especially repulsive.
and there was ke6tinOny 70 their
W. are cited q 'I;bme exereme
cases where photographs were RS
iected on the grounds that witnesses
had described what they would show.
or that would inflame and prejudice
the jury, doctrines that we are not
| able to sanction and which are mo-
| supported by the weight of authority.
| If iuries cannot be entrusted with
| the pertinent facts for which litigants
and offenders are responsible, how
ever appalling they may be, and with
| the most accurate, instructive and
convincing evidence Of those facts.
! it is time to abolish the jury system.
Photographs, engraving and the arts
| of picture making are important fact
ors in cur civilization and the courts
! in their search for truth should not
se averse to accepting the benefits
they bring A glimpse at photo
graph may give a more definite and
correct idea of building or of a
/ persons features than the most MI
mute and detailed testimony. A child
| may learn more regarding the ap-
pearance CT an animal it never saw
by the sight of it's picture than by
i listening to lecture or reading a
| volume Of description. When photo
graphs are shown to be correct repre-
i sensations and give.a better and clea--
ers understanding or relevant facts it
would seem on reason ard principle
that their use as evidence should be
favored. It is generally held that
they need not be taken by a pro-
fessional Photographer, and that any-
one who knows may testify regarding
their correctness. That photographs
of proven fidelity are properly re-
ceeived for the purpose of idensi-
1 fication. fer illustrating testimony an
for giving a better impression a
persons, places and things and for
more clearly showing material facts
has often been determined as appear:
bv the numerous cases cited in re
spondents brief. and at Sec. 1872 d
Wigmore's elaborate work on evidence
at PIP Ala to 419 of II Cyc., at D. 513
Of Abbots Criminal Trial Brief and
in Dederichs vs. Salt Lake CITY R. r
Co.. IA Utah 1877. 46 Pac. SIS, an
notated 35 L. f. A. 1872.
Photographs of deceased persons
were properly admitted in Wilson VS.
Y. s. 16s. q. S. 613 {Murder,r Ruloa
VS. People 45 N. Y. 213. of deceased
burglars after bodies had been il
vault two days. Com. Keller, 10,
Pa 122. 43 Att. 1913, State V. Windoh.
r95 Iowa 479 (of deceased after he
was shot) Smith v TER, IL Ok, $50
6s Pac.. sos corpse and wounds
People " Fish, 125 n. Y. 1876 thea;
! and neck showing woundsl Marion '
, State. 90 Neb. 24O 90 N. w. 91t
Lamb v. State. IS n W. 1850. Stat
Nv. Hossuck, lie Iowa. 1914. 50 n. W
. / 1877. and of features in Com. v. MOI
gan. 159 Mass 375, State Wildwood
| i27 R. l. 763, State v. Mccoy, Is Utal
|, 1856. TAYLOR " Warner. So Tex. 81:
People vs.. DurranL 116 Cal. 179
[ Peamis VS. State IS. Ind. 535
COM v. Cornors 156 Pa. 147. Cowie
y People. % n. Y. ATT, State doldeI
. - Mimi 354 and of wounds in Roddil
) v Gates. 81 Iowa 213.s 80 Am. r.. Al
, taken three days after injury an
in Franklin Y. State, So Ga. A., Chic
-us-ice Jackson said: "a photograph
, of the wound of the deceased wa
t admitted as evidence over the objec
y ION Of defendant. The throat Ct d,
i, ceased was cut: :, the character of th
wound was important to elucidate tt
$ issue: the man was killed and burie'
; and = description OF the cut by vi
i nesses must have been resorted to
: we cannot conceive of a more in
s partial and truthful witness that tt
e sun. as it's light stamps and sea
r the similitude of the wound on II
5 photograph put before the jury.
e would be more accurate that the me
\ | DRY of witnesses and as the objet
IT 1 CT all evidence is to show the trut
!; why should not this dumb wine!
:. show it? Usually the photograph
> Introduced to prove the identity
er a person. but why not to show Il
e characted. of the wound. In eth
,e case it is evidence: it throws lig
1t on the issue. Bish. Grim. Pro
" 1897: Warton',s Grim. Ev., 544, a,
le cases cited in both texts.
Re Z The defendant Sevener testifi,
~ en- his direct examination that he h;
Q. served term in the State Prison
" San Quentin California. and had be
| iCAEU1Cu VII July LOs lOOo, OAC NlOu
:. previous to the commission Of t
re crime with which he here stan
al enarsed On cross examination he a
as mitted that he had been convict
be and was known there under the maj
IN of lawson. The court sustained
er objection to the question, "Wh
ell other pens have you been in
OF Sevener, besides the California S
he Ouel4in pen? Exception is taken
en- the allowance OF the next questi
tut Ever arrested for any other often
Ter excep the one in California? To t
he answered that he had been s.
ed rested in Vallejo. for being dru
nj with a bunch of shfpmates." I
led District Attorney replied; IF that
misdemeanor. do not care anvth
be- about it. | want to ask you II 5,
seT were ever convicted Of felony
de- cept the one which You served
me nonitentiarv OffenSe not n con,