Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-04

may furnish evidence of the corpus |
deIicti-they may indicate that a |
crime has been committed. but there
must be proof Of the fact from some |
source other than that of the de- |
fendant's admissio~-." The court |
rites other examp d then refer |
N to the case unUar consideration
says: Laying aside the evidence #
defendant's admissions, there is moth
ing whatever in the record even point
ing toward the commission CT n
crime" (See also People vs. Jones 81
Cal. 567; State VS. Lamb % Mo 219
St9te VS. Guild 10 N j. L. $50, 18 Am
Dec. 414)
In the case Of the State vs.. All
Chuey, II New 81, this Court held that
proof Of the corpus deficit may Re
established by circumstantial evil
dence, provided it is satisfactory"
In the case before US We think there
was competent evidence independent
f tn admissions of the defendant
tending to establish the corpus deficit
Dr. Pache testified that on Saturday
eOur days after the alleged 0ffense
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 founLthat her bym ~
was infamed and at some time evi-
IDENTIFY had been liberated: Tat the
young lady was rather hysterical an,
would only permit oCCUlar inspection
and digital examination on account
Of the extreme tenderness of the
parts. He further testified: From
the evidence ] found | would state
that in all probability that Miss Avtr-
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 18th,
testified that she was then agitatcd
and nervous and appeared TO haze
been crying; that he observed marks
of violence upon her nose and upper
lip: that she showed him marks NJ
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, te5-
!
October 4th. a marx upon the nose
and on the side of compliments
throat. apparently scratches.
1t also may be gathered from the
evidence that the defendant, a man
the complainant, his step-daughter.
were at the time of the alleged rs
sault. occupying a box car as a HON ,
Infn IN, fIN ,1-,x-
of the railroad) the defendants wife
mother of the complainant being alb
sent. and the complainant being LETT
in defendants care.
We think these facts and circuin-
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 suficien,,y
Of this evidence to variant the con-
viction of the defendant, and upon
that question express no opinion. In
this connection it is proper to OBJ
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 ,e-
cent decision, In re Mitchell (Cal.
App s. Fac. 347. In order to hold
| defendant and put him on his trial
| the committing magistrate is not re-
quired to find evidence sufficient TO
warrant a conviction. All that is re-
uuired is that there be a sufficient
| legal evidence to make it appear THAI
"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. J.
| We concur:
! Fitzgerald, c. ].
/ Talbot. J.
| Filed December "a 1915