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

that she said it was true. That he
told the defendant that he would
place him under arrest to appear be-
fore court to answer the charge.
That he asked the ~ctendant what he
had to say to the charge and that
the defendant salI '.he would answer
before p 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 cousei upon either side
in the presentation of this case as
standing in a 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 a 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 the
complainant excluded. there Us 20
competent proof Of the corpus delicti
Two witnesses. 9. 0. Wilson and A.
n. Jones, the deputy sheriff, gave tes-
timony relative to an admission
made bv the defendant while he was
being taken upon the train from the
place where the offense is alleged 10
have been committed to Hawthorne.
That portion Of the testimony of me
witness Wuson relative to the ld-
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 a young lady. I afterwards fouad
to be Harry Averill, and they took pos
session Of a seat [ had occupied up
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 |
learned was her mother The mother
came in and was talking to the de
PENDANT. The mother asked him what
made him do it. The defendant saws
I 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 several
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 of
the defendant to his wife on rail-
road car after his arrest are clearly
inadmissible because there was no
proof that a crime had been commit
ted, and the corpus deficit cannot De
established by the confession Of the
defendant
1t will be conceded that the over
whe,ming weight Of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
judicial confession or admission CT
a prisoner, not eorborated by IN
dependent proof of the corpus deficit
will not justify conviction. It is not
requisite. however. that the crime
charged be conclusively establish ed
by evidence independent of the con-
fession or admission. 1t is sufficient
{ there be other competent evldenc
tending to establish the fact Of the
commission of a crime.
In people VS. Bradley, 16 Wend. On.
" 5s, Nelson, c. j. said: Full
proof Of the body of the crime. the
corpus dencti, independently of the
confession is not required by any Ct
the cases: and in manv of them slight
corroborating facts were held suffici-
emit
In the case Of state We Hall. 81 w.
Va. sos the Court said: Eve know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
! the admissions of the defendant are
not competent eidence tending to
prove the corpus deficit. Such admis-
sions may not be sufficient proof f
the corpus deficit, but they certainly
are competent evidence tending ID
prove that the crime. charged has been
committed
In the case of Matthews VS. State. )!
! Ala, 1877: % Am. Rep. sos, where many
| authorities are cited and reviewed,
| the Court by Bricknell. C. J. says:
! Nor must We be understood as afr
ming that the proof of the corpus
.'eIicti must be as full and conclusive
| as would be essential if there was
| no confession to corroborate it. Evi
| dence Of facts and circumstances, a
tending the particular offense, an l
usually attending the commission oil
| similar offense-cr Of facts to the
! discovery Of which the confession has
| led, and which would not probably
have existed if the Offense had no
/ been committed-or of facts having {
just tendency to lead the MIND
to the conclusion that the OF
Tense has been committee
would be admissible to cor
roborate the confession. The weigh
which would be accorded them. whel
connected with the confession. tn
jury must determine. under proper II
distractions from the Court
The case of People VS.. Simpson. 10
Cal. 346, cited in petitioners brie
! ! H. xr,;+I, tho outhn-itiac ohny