Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-06

may furnish evidence of the corpus
deIicti-they may indicate that
crime has been committed. but there
must be proof of the fact from some
source other than that of the de-
PENDANTS admissions The court
cites other examples and then rel
in to the case under consideration
says: Laying aside the evidence If
defendants admissions, there is moth
ing whatever in the record even point
ing toward the commission of
crime" (See also People VS. Jones 81
Cal. 567; State VS. Lamb % Mo. PIG.
State VS. Guild 10 N. j. l.. $50, rs Am.
Dec 414.)
In the case Of the State vs.. All
Chuey. IA New. 90, this Court held that
proof of the corpus deficit may De
established by circumstantial evil
dence. provided it is satisfactory"
IN the case before Us we think there
was competent evidence independent
Of tn admissions of the defendant
tending to establish the corpus deficit
DR.. Pache testified that On Saturday
four days after the alleged offense
was committed, be made an examina-
ton of the person OF the complain
ant Harriet AyeriD, who is shown
to be but slightly over fifteen years
of age; that he found that her hym AZ
was infiamed and at some time evil
IDENTIFY had been lacerated: that the
young lady was rather hySterical and
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 Aver
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 4th,
testified that she was then agitated
and nervous and appeared to have
been crying; that he observed marks
of violence upon her nose and upper
lip; that she showed him marks NJ
on her wrists: also. a mark on the
side Of her throat and that her throat
seemed to be swollen and red.
The witness Lovegrove, also, te5-
| titled to observing on the evening Of
! October 4th. marx upon the nose
and on the side of complainant 5
| throat, apparently scratches.
1t also may be gathered from the
evidence that the defendant, a man
of but twenty-one years of age. AMI
| the complainant, his step-daughter.
| were at the time of the alleged rs.
sault occupying box car as HON ,
| (the defendant being in the employ
| of the railroad) the defendants wife
| mother of the complainant being alb
| sent, and the complainant being Ief'
! in defendants care
! We think these facts and circuln
stances tended to prove the corpus
delcti and were sufficient together
with the defendants admission to
! Justify the magistrate in holding thy
! defendant to answer.
We are not called upOn on this
/ hearing. to pass upon the sufficien "
/ of this evidence to warrant the con
viction of the defendant. and upon
/ that question express no opinion. In
this connection it is proper to Oh
serve that magistrate in holding :
| defendant to answer for a crime, is
! not required 10 nave submitted eFl
! dence sufficient to establish the gull
of the person charged beyond a rea
sonable doubt. AS was said in -
cent decision, In re Mitchell tCll
App So Pac. SAT. in order to hold
defendant and put him. on his trial
| the committing magistrate is not 70
quired to find evidence sufficient II
warrant conviction. All that is re
ouired is that there be sufiicien
/ legal evidence to NAL it aSpear tina
| "a public otfense has been committee
and there is sufficient cause to he
| lieEe the defendant guilt thereof
The writ issued herein is dismissed
NorcrOss. ].
We concur:
Fitzgerald, c. ].
Talbot, J.
Filed December IS. 1905.