The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-11-17
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Continued from Page 81

JSCuOu W tue SAINT. ne DOuy VI /
the indictment reads as follows:
Defendants Johnny, indian |
(whOse other name, ii e =. the |
Grand Jury unknown) .pl Joe iba-
Dah. an Indian, (whOse ncs lame, I
il any, is to the Grand jar, unkno Nn)
are accused by the Granu ..ui. q; TIT
County of ElkO. State Q. ,+oyada. b,
tAls indictment of the CT n "a ,nur
.er. committed as follow. q .,i;:
That the said defenda. ,'uinn,
an Indian, and Joe lL..la. = indian
% or about the 1..n day Occem
her, A. D. 1905 in the Conn" Il ElkC
State of Nevada. and befol sc lind
ing of this Indictment, WI i"'t au
thority OF law. felOniously. "ilfully,
unlawfully and OF their malice afore-
thought, killed a certain human being,
herein designated as Fred Foreman,
whose true name is to the Grand Jury
unknown, by striking. cutting and
s;abbing the said Fred Foreman with
knives; whereof and by means OF
1he striking, cutting and stabbiria
aforesaid, the said Fred Foreman
then and there died.
Counsel ior appellants claim that
the indictment is defective IN THIS:
That it does not in tne body thereof
charge the defendants Of the crime
Of murder or state that murder was
committed" Also, that the Speci-
&c acts alleged, viz. the cutting, ect.
are not alleged To have been done
ritb intent to kill"
The indictment follows suDstan-
-, s Comm laws Sec. 42Oo.)
~ DOT cb,roed as the Offense is,
~ ,t;n,, nIaar,v and distinctly set
sar+,, -, ordinary and concise lal-
mage and in such a manner as 10
- nareor Of common under
s,andina to know what was intended.
and with such degree OF certainty
40 To enable a court to pronounce
u1dgme,t upon a conviction accorG!ng
"a the right Of the case. and L Is
therefore sufficient. Comp. Laws,
49,. +I,o stat. had rested rs
,..-o1 f., tho defendant John
"a D. .,,l,,.,,ood hat his client. also
NY -, hie Leiat, moved that
feSAe"' en- Ii,-l,, Ia tho ;,,rv AT this
vac go ,af,ro s,,, testimony is offered
I'm behalf Of the defendant loapah.
-, 49,, stated 10 the court as
O'''-- sn, r,,1,inr this notion that
i'"'Dt- rc,,,,sel for Jbapah, in
WI. tho. tho defendant ibapah
ioth5 NJ ,l'' ...nd in his own bcnaIf
va t'.,f,,,,a 1hanah.s testimony Will
ana ,:a;a, =, tho defendant. John
be pFeJo"loi'I
ny" .i,,,o -
The court 81, '' 'dl,;oa i and
CONSIDER me h't.ioH' orror
this ruling IS as"isneu 'o o4 ou,
Sections 800 to 90 NV "el'o
Criminal f .so-l ,,.a,.ides as follows:
0tI' Co $50 When two o,
dafendan+s are Jointly indict p
for any of1elae' 'Ae ,-a shown b1
tried' uiiles. ~ -. defense the cour,
the prosecution or deieH'e' 'N
shall otherwise oii .r-o ar NOR,
1926. Sec. 3'i. ieN +ho sar,e in
persons are lnciuueu M '- INV tim,
dictment, the court mo- i conc int,
before lhe oel ,1;c.tion Of tht
his defense, on the appll'"lion ,osa,d
pl''.i'' ,a discbarred from the indict
ant 10 Ne ,a a witness TO
ment, thal he may
the people. o, u-,or two O.
1927. Sec. 90 "al,dod in the
more persons " and the court is o
same lno... *. roeard to a particula
opinion ina, M not sufficient evi
defendant thele 10 ~, his defense,
dence 10 pu: 20 no discharged from
shali o,u. nt before the evidence
the indictment ,,osod that he ma
shall be deemeu VIZ codefendant."
.,e a witness for ms cooe ,;ntoa wit,
A defendant soln to demand
another, VINO ln.eio1 make his motto,
separate trial mus' of the Jury i
before the formation an VI WcLane, l
commenced. estate "
Nev. 359l aosardan
TO nave permitted me u u,,hmitt e
and determined upon tne in effec
Of the States case "oo,u ara.a tria
have given him s sps'o heen j
which would not only ha ,atnte bu
plain violation OF ',ie co far 4
nisht have been 1a'al eiloi
r,.,,,,e caGe was cOuCci HNN-