The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-11-14
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Continued from Page 81

pah an Indian, (whOSe other name,
if any, is to the Grand Jury unknown
are accused by the Grand Jury of the
County of Elko, State Of Nevada, y! |
tals Indictment of the crime OF muir
..ar. committed as follows, to wit:
That the said defendants. JOHN,
an Indian, and Joe lbapah, an lnclaA
on or about the z.,h day OF DecaE-
Der. A. d. 1905 in the County CT E.EJ =.
State of Nevada. and before the lind |
ing of this indictment, without au
thoritv Of law, feloniously, wilfully,
unlawfully and Of their malice afore-
thought, killed a certain human being,
herein designated as Fred Foreman,
whose true name is to the Grand Jury
unknown, by striking, cutting and
stabbing the said Fred Foreman with
knives; whereof and by means Of
The striking, cutting and stabbir,i
aforesaid, the said FREQ Foreman
then and there died.
Counsel Tor appellants claim that
the indictment is defective IN THIS:
That it does not in the body Thereon
charge the defendants Of the crime
of murder or state that MURDER "ae
committed" Also, that the specl-
+Ip u,
~ aI1oee5 to have been done
with intent to kill.
The indictment fellows sn'S',n.
tiallv the form suggested by our
statute. Comp. Laws. Sec. 4-'")
the act charged as the oheIlse -
we think, clearly and distinctly SET
for,h in ordinary and concise laA-
-uage. and in such a manner as W
9nah'a q person OF common under
.-snding 10 know what was lnjehceh.
,r1 win such \ degree OF certainty
49, IN enable court to pronounce
ir5orner- l;pCn 2 conviction acc"Ea'h-
n the ,ighr Of The case. ana i -
-t,orafora Sufficient. Comp. Laws.
,e,r ,ha state had rested Is
. 'i, ,, Co., rho DESCENDANT John
'"7'' '"'''i ool Wa, his client. also.
ny d!iI1'',', i,;- ,aba. moved THAT
reo'ed IT, ''li 0l 49,: - Inc inry 4; this
ne taso,a anv testimony is offered
~, bnhalf OF me defendant lpdp""'
Nod'7'' ,1.;,a this notion that
reason i'i -o, fo,. Ibanab. in
MI, ~. .ho defendant Ibapah
forms li' o,,G in his own behalf
viii take 'he 9,"iio ,astimony will
All" i "e.!@. = -" aofo,dart John
be preJnhlcldl u '4AN
ny" ,-; limo ,C
The court, al'e' ''hln i:oa - an,
consloer the notion uen'o~ tror
this ruling IS a7slsheH a. If ON
Sections 800 10 90, l''I ICnmn Law
Criminal F ~ ~ nrnvides as follows
Secs. -,23-f33-p prov w. ',',,on two 0
,,,o.a aefeudants are Jointly lhoic',
for any ohen 49, GOOD cause shown b
trleu, uiileo -, defense. the cour
the pfoseo d;rec+
shall other"lae "'' N-Lo,, two or m II
1926. sec 'o i,aod in the same il
persons are lhciu'eu l ., any tim
dictment. the co"l no ; cone int
before the oelenu'n. ,,;,.,io, of tn
his defense. on 'he app, aofen,
ant to be discharseo ~ l'o' witness fc
ment, that ne i''
the people. ga, u-har two c
1927. sec. 'o- wounded in tn
more persons az d the court is
same lndlctn!eh. .nrd 70 particulf
opinion that III not sufficient ey
defendant theie - bic defense.
o,au order him to be discharge, ~
shaii olu ;.t,nant before the eviden'
the lndle aaamea closed. that he ms
shan DE for his codefendant.' ;.
be witness wines nj t0' Jointly addicted Wi
A uelen .,,n Intends to demand
another, VINO must make his motto
separate 'ri'' n Of the jury
before the formation VI Mc1ane.
commenced 'o'"'
New. 339.) ,;+.od the defenda
To nave permitted a .n. SUBMIT
Johnny to nave ms the conclusi
and determined upon wo ,n in effe
Of the states case eanarate tri
have given MN on1v have been
which would not on ny statute. b
plain Vloia'loh o sata1 error so far
might have been l"'" anco,ned
Ibapah's case was co n,+ Ionnnv
Counsel for oelei''"'''
his brief says: .:,e.o Of = defenda
1T is the pilNil.s o. when the
Jointly tried With aho, mo- oo' AGAINST h
&c little or no esiHSit 20 ~, /