Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-03

place him under arrest to appear be-
fore a court to answer the charge.
That lie asked the defendant what he
had to say to the charge and that
the defendant sald che would answer
before 2 court or when it was time
to make them
This portion of the testimony Of
the witness does not seem to have been
considered by cousel upon either side
in the presentation of this case as
standing in different position from
the testimony relative to the stare
ments Of the complainant heretofore
referred TO, made without the pres
ence of the defendant We think,
however, it presents question worthy
of careful consideration of court anl
counsel, but as it has not been pre-
scented in the briefs or arguments in
this matter and as, in the view we
take Of the case. the action of the
magistrate in holding the defendant
TO answer, can be sustained upon
other portions OF the testimony alone.
the question will not now be deter
mined
1t is urged by counsel for petitioner
that with the statements made by tn
complainant excluded, there is no
competent proof of the corpus deficit.
Two witnesses. c. 0. Wilson and A.
N Zones, tie deputy sheriff, gave tes-
timOny relative to an admission
made by the defendant while he was
being taken upon the train from the
place where the offense is alleged to
have been committed to Hawthorne
That portion of the testimony of the
witness Wilson relative to the ad-
mission is as follows:
This defendant was brought into
the car at a place called Shurz bet
ween here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and young lady. | afterwards found
TO be Harry Averill, and they took pos
TO that time. | took the seat across
the aisle. Seeing the man with
bracelets on excited more or less cur
iosity and when he came into the car
the young lady went in the car be-
hind and got another lady which l
learned was her mother. The mother
came in and was talking to the de-
PENDANT. The mother asked him wha,
made him do it. The defendant saws
| don't know. The mother was hyS,
terical and she made the remark
ought to kill you He assented He
did yes. Well she says why don't
do it and repeated the remark severa
| times and about that time she tainted
and swooned away"
The testimony of the deputy sheriff
relative to this admission. was sub
stantialy to the same effect
Counsel Tor petitioner say in their
brief:
The testimony of Wilson and Jones
deputy sheriff, as to the admissions O
the defendant to his wife on a rail
road car after his arrest are clearly
inadmissible because there was nc
proof that a crime had been commit
( ted, and the corpus deficit cannot be
established by the confession Of the
defendant
1t will be conceded that the over
whelming weight of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission CT
prisoner, not corborated. by IN
dependent proof of the corpus deficit
will not justify conviction. 1t is mo-
requisite. however, that the crime
charged be conclusively establish ed
by evidence Independent Of the con
fession or admission. It is suficien
if there be other competent evlden.
tending to establish. the tact Of thu
commission of q crime. --
In, people vs. Bradley. Is Wend. IN
Y) S.. Nelson, c. J. said: "Fuil
proof Of the body Of the crime tn
corpus deficit, Independently of thu
confession ID not required BY any q
| the cases: and in many Of them Sigh
| corroborating facts were held sufnci
ent." = "a ~ &, .',.>
In the case Of state " Hall. 81 W
Va! sos the, Court said: I'VE know
! of no decisions. anywhere that holt
the admissions Of the defendant ar
not competent eidence tending t
| prove the corpus, deiicths Such, admi,
sicns may not be, sufficient proof
the corpus deficit, but they certainl
are competent evidence tending q
prove that the crime charged has bee
| committed .9ie-. ..,sc
In the case of Matthews vs. State,
! Ala, 1877; % Am Rep 6SS, where man
authorities are cited and reviewed
the Court by Bricknell, c. J. says
Nor must we be understood as affil
ming that the proof Of the corpu
deficit must be as full and conclusiv
I as would be essential if there wa
no confession to corroborate it. Ev
dence Of facts and circumstances, 4
tending the particular offense, an
usually attending the commission {
similar Offense-Or of facts to tn
discovery Of which the confession hs
led, and which would not probabl
have existed if the offense had M
been committed of facts having
just tendency to lead the min
to the conclusion that the o
Tense has been committe
: would be admissible to CO
roborate the confession. The weigi
(, which would be accorded them, whe
: connected with the confession, Il
jury must determine. under proper
structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson. 1
Cal. BAG, cited in petitioners bril-
4 is in line with the authorities abo
quoted The court in that case sa
y ''1he term corpus delictp means {