The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-11-15
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Continued from Page 81

Defendants Johnny. an Indian
twhose other name, il any, is to the
Grand jury unknown) and Joe lba-
pah AZ Indian, twhose other name
ii any is TO the Grand Jury unknown
are accused by the Grand jury of the
County OF Elko, State of Nevada b.
this Indictment Of the crime OF niui'
,-cr. committed as follows, to wit:
That the said defendants, Jol.1n
AT indian. and Joe lbapah. an lndIal
III OF about the -.,h day of Dec2n
beg, A. d. 1905 in the County Of f1....
S ate 81 Nevada. and before the lind
ing OF this Indictment, without AT
choritN Of law, feloniously, Wilfully,
Gnlawfully and Of their malice atore-
thought killed 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
lne striking, cutting and ,tabblii;
aforesaid, the said Fred Foreman
linen and there dieo.
Counsel Tor appellants claim that
The Indictment is defective in this:
That it does moi in tne body thereof
charge the defendants OF the crime
Of murder or state that murder was
committeu' Also, that the specl-
IL acts alleged, viz. the cutting, ect.
az, not alleged to have been done
with intent to kill
rbo indictment fc;,ows subatan-
tally the form suggested by our
rh@ ac1 charged - the ot1ense Is
we think. clearly and distinctly set
forth in ordinary and concise lall-
a-.age. and IN such manner a 5 10
anabte a person of common under
starding to know what vas intended,
ana with such a degree OF certainty
~ TO enable 4 court to pronounce
judgment upon Z conviction accoro-h3
10 the right Of the case. ana i Is
therefore. sufficient comp. Laws
,so. H.,
.f,or +r,a eta+o had re@4cd its
o,.a counsel for the defendant John
&C., ,,a,,,ood .far his client, also.
1900 ,,a or III. bah3;. moved that
th.. case he given to the jury at this
t,r,o he+ora any testimony is offered
an hota1f Of the defendant ibapah.
Counsel IN stated TO me couIt a.
q ,,,a1.nr c0,,nsp1 for Ibapah. in
,ha+ tho defendant lbapah
i''!iS -,a,,d j., hi. own behalf
WEI e'''>V II-.,,,,1,,s testimony will
anu ,:.:a, 80 .,n dafnndart. John
De pfeJo'i''''' - '-'-
ny. ,-. .:,,,o "a
The court ".,e1 '''hI. :aa = and
cons aer 'he iio:iol', orro,.
this ruling is ASSIGNED d. ,., G.,o' af ON,
Sections 3oo to 80 lhtluSlNe' u
Criminal praclice AcV 'ooi-'t f,,laxc.
secs ESQ, .'-S go et 90 Vnen two or
1atond,nte are Jointly indict -
for any oifense. a rneS c S, shown by
tried. unless loi 7oD dafonsc the court
the pEoseou.i;on direct
shall o'hci W. se4 Whom Two or more
40. SCI ol,,aoa i, the same in
persons are ihei''oo' saw 81 any time
dictment, the co"l ma ,,,,a into
before the oelelioaA, Ilt1,,ion of the
his defense. on 'ile ,:ao, anv defend
District 1>etcrne!' W. f,o,,, tho indict
ant ~ W ~ NOV No witness fol-
ment, that he may ~
the people a., When two Oh
1927. Sec. oo-' ie.aoa in the
more persons are d inc court is OF
same iho ..a. ~ rerard to a particular
opinion .na t,are is not sufficient evl
defendant .ne h ~ on his defense, i
dence TO pui ~. n ~ ~ he discharged from
81: aha'' ,udictment. before the evldehct
the lnalc,iiene' Chased that he ma,
shall be aeeiil oa' ne codefendant."
be witness witness to' Jointly , addicted wit!
A defendant ;1 .oan to demand q
another, VINO must make his motor
separate 'rlai .:a. Of tho Jury i
before the formation "a Nc1.ane, l;
commenced. estate v
New. 339.) :..aa tho defendan
To nave permitted a .'e submitte,
Johnny TO have his case +he c sn"'i,,
and determined noon uon}d in effect
Of the States case "o 5enara NJ, trial
have given him a sp''o hoen j,
which would not onls Nc, @tatu1e bu
plain violation OF we r.or % far a
might have been la'al oarnad
ibapah's case was son nt Icnnnv il
ont