Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-12-30

told Observation-Disclosures 1esMou.d
place him under arrest to appear be-
EQlIf-0EA5Ik EI1uE3-Cl1S
That ae asked the defendant what he
had to say .oNttoa ch0oa and that
the defendant sad he would answer
SsfaS sosEi ri Ii ~AsgHs Il s xssfF ss1IIRes
This portion cHuAa testimony Of
ess S1sas5f aaSs D sie
invq&R d5fEBehazaNR 6ethES9ase as
staad6tg dthwasEdi1Eenantb paaifinui from
tho festti iH4pM xalat 6tafaI
nserl p ee fSs 9fs
ekAat oadMe baefendkiNnoWe aAffnlg,
hastaf4r ,tiflr esnstssGqueEaiohswsrthg'
Of fraarefHh iffaaHsid AEatiiRgs04 c9AHlD AMI
s seaasfi III p 45fs aaS az SS n
this IfaHtsef,1 a1E6 E%cino th4o Aeisg
take of the case, the aa5ffmo kfrdha
magistEske oifp vh y tn efendaHt
otffhr portidHs fqhA teAsHtfmoffy 81 6f fieell
thee Question u&in laOtifAbweB9 deter:
minedmer edit boodfiafI lis nt bns nor
IT is urged, by Hp { III sci fer petitiQn4n
that with the statements made by tna
compliment excluded, There no
competentopbobfsof tiss. eOfpais dsHgtf.
) Two dYitnesses,i 6. % 3 MilsaneanA A.
n. Jones. the deputy s sheriff fff gave ter
stimony GkIative to an admission
made by the defen4afif wh11e he was
being taksk5 a6uhi shal Drain u16m the
place where the odense is alleged 70
4 T6aa bSa{ f 9aI IT. }s1m5aE Is 'hs
witness Wllsdff pMafHebsfUo the adj
lni gslssg is as follows; sdt 10 agso CIT
'sThis defendant was. brought INTO
the car at a place Gated Shurz BET
waeh Here land Reno With MI. Jones
andna iNoungldady. afterwards Fouod
ito be Harry AsEerill. and they took pos.
> session Of a seat / had. occupied ,up
ito that time. I TOOK the seat across
the = aisle liSeAfng the man With
obracf1ets onieEciteuhmoref or fiasss cur
iositreaada when he, caRaea interthe ear
othe Y pq4ng ab |aYsAY went in the car be.
Learned was her mother The mother
came ine@nd owas s talking Ito theilde-
PENDANT. The mother asked him what
made, him do it. 3 The defendant says
/ don't know The mother was hys.
.terieafh and She made the remark !
ought to kill you. He assented He
did,,Sesoi Well she says owhv don't !
do it and ID Tepeated the remark eseyera
times and about that time she, tainted
and swooned away" 7aa~ - ''h 'ass'
heeestimony of the deputy sheriff
relative ito; this admissioA.a was sub
stantialy. to the same Effect y~a
f. Counsel lor petitioner, say in their
brief: Pr '5f@ ~ --sh' ~ s.
1.-The testimony of Wilson and Jones
deputy sheriff, as to the admissinnsso1
z the, ,defeadantyto his wife, on a rail
road car after his arrest are clearly
,inadmissible because there was no
proUfusHaeiA s9ifhH H Al AeehJ com sfie
4 TED, aud the corpusndeiicti c&DnOts re
'ts :. 81 seyashed ole thse
:, # VII hbe eOheeedeed tRat The the a Over.
whelming weight 6f authority III tifis
| Country is to- the effect that ans extra
Judicial confession ser, admission Of
dependent i prroo66f 8bf the coHppoas deIieti,
will not justify convection. Ie Is not
charged be conclusively established
by evidence independspt Of the con
|, fession or admission. It is sufficient
If tlrereiebel otheuIrompafen revsd Lem,
tending to- establish the fact efsiths
BUommission, of "A crime,4 n {.a,.,
In people VS.. Bradley, If Wend, IN
,XD So. Nelson, Aessd fsaidsp s4sdfl
proof of the body Of the, crime. the
eornus oA9Tfdti;;o ihaeepehHehtfV w OF sttse
|eeDnf@ssioif issMotI srequttedwhg an3nbi
she cages; dand in apenya0f them S44ssis
corF9bofatinSo fastf waafEe has e4lqtt s4fthlci
Fdf InsTsprcsle BF aeate1qs if4snogsi vi
Ma. 1908 thtsFotpt Ind: zThNaakndw
of nnd,'enisiaas 2 arv whereccss hat hold
bthe admissions yQftther defendant are
moi competent Seeiidenaccee tending K
/ Drove then Nna idf isti. nsSisebI a qiRsF
the Corpus dslicti, but 4heE e 81 :lihl
are ccornpetent sevidtnca5 nrrendfng Il
prove thai tife efiM eectaf geAnhas beer
| committed eet - .raosag;a .ra5ud
I In the case of MattheHsiHs State;-5I
Ala, 1877; Is Am. Rep. 69s, where man,
eauth orities are cited and reviewed
! the Court by Rrickuell- C1-~.S SAYS.
'Ncrl must We he urnersrood Hs atfiry
iminglIthat the proof of the corpa'
Eieiictf must be as full and bnelusiv
j as Would be essential Tsa taereA Ma:
no cSpfession to corrohosatel it.rss NJ
t .dencSiof facts and circ6ms tanees, q:
tending the particular. offense. an
usually attending the commission c
Il similar offense--or of facts to til
/ discoSfery Of which the confession ha
| led, bid which would not probabt
have, existed if the offense had n6
i been iommitted-or Of facts having
j just tendency to lead the min
4 TO fAe conclusion that the O
| fensdi has been COMMITTEE
4 -wotAd be admissible to co
the confession. The weigi
4 (which would be accorded them, whe
| -connbtted with the confession. tt
jury must determine, under proper i
strucfions from the Court"
Tho case of People vs.. Simpson. L
Cal 1916, cited in petitioners bri !
J Il ~ 4, ! = E<,@