Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-29

may furnish Evidence OF the eospas
IdeIictEthey may indicate that q
crime has been committed. but there
must be proof Of the fact from some
source other, than that Of the de-
PENDANTS admissionsfs The court
cites other examples and then refer
in to the case under consideration
says: Laying aside the evidence CT
defendants admissions, there is moth
ing whatever in the record even point
ling toward the commission of a
crime" (See also People VS. Jones 81
Cal. SGT: State VS. Lamb 20 Mo. PIG,
| State VS. Guild 10 N. J. L. 100, 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 evil
dence. provided it is satisfactory"
/ In the case before us we think there
was competent evidence independent
fof 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 AveriH, who is shown
to be but slightly over fifteen years
of age: that he found that her hym N
was infiamed and at some time evil
IDENTIFY had been lacerated: that the
young lady was rather hySterical and
would only permit occular inspection
and digital examination on account
of the extreme tenderness of the
parts. He further testified: From
| nxysI
that in all probability that Miss Aver,
| ill at 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 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 up-
on her wrists; also, a mark on the
side of her throat and that her throat
seemed to be swollen and red.
! The witness Lovegrove, also. tes-
tilted to observing on the evening oi
October 4th, a marx upon the nose
and on the side If complainant's
!. throat, apparently scratches.
1 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 circui1l
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 is proper to Oh
serve that a 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-
sonable doubt AS was said in a ie-
cent decision. In re Mitchell (Cal.
App 80 Pac. 347, "In order to hold
defendant and put him on his trial,
the committing magistrate is not re-
quired to find evidence sufficient 10
warrant a conviction All that is re-
| quired is that there be a sufficient
legal evidence to make it appear tina,
"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:
Fitzgerald, c. j.
Talbot, J.
Filed DQcpnhor IL 1QAS