Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-01-07

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 admiosions!' The court
cites other examples and then refer
in to the case under consideration
says: Laying aside the evidence rf
defendants admissions, there is moth
ing whatever in the record even point
ing toward the commission of n
crime" (See also People VS. Jones 81
Cal. SGT: State VS. Lamb % Mo. 219.
State VS. Guild 10 N. j. L. $50, rs Am
Dec. 414)
In the case Of the State VS.. All
Chuey, IA New. 81, this Court held that
proof Of the corpus deficit may BE
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, he made an examina-
ton Of the person of the complain
ant, Harriet AveriII, who is shown
to be but slightly over fifteen years
of age; that he found that her hym N
was inflamed and at some time evil
IDENTIFY had been lacerated; that the
young lady was rather hySterical ard
would only permit occular inspection
and digital examination on account
of the extreme tenderness Of the
orfc
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, mark on the
| side of her throat and that her throat
seemed to be swollen and red.
The witness Lovegrove, also, ties.
| titled to observing on the evening 81
! October 4th. marx upon the nose
and on the side Of complainant
throat, apparently scratches.
1t also may be gathered from the
! evidence that the defendant, mar
Of but twenty-one years of age. an
the complainant. his step-daughter
were at the time of the alleged rs
sault, occupying q box car as a homa
| (the defendant being in the emplo,
Of the railroad> the defendants wife
mother of the complainant being alb
| sent. and the complainant being lief
in defendants care
! We think these facts and circuIn
stances tended to prove the corpu
deficit and were sufficient togethe,
with the defendants admission to
justify the magistrate in holding TIN
defendant to answer.
We are net called upon, On this
hearing. to pass upon the suficien,,.
Of this evidence to warrant the con
viction of the defendant. and upo1
that question express NO opinion. II
| this connection it is proper to Oh
| serve that q magistrate in holding
defendant to answer for a crime, il
not required to have submitted evi
dence sufficient to establish the gull
of the person charged beyond a rea
sonable doubt. AS was said in e
cent decision. In re Mitchell (Cal
App 50 Fac. BAT. en- order to hoid
defendant and put him on his trial
the committing magistrate is not re
quired to find evidence sufficient Il
warrant a conviction. All that is re
quired is that there be a sufficien
legal evidence to make it appear tina
"a public offense has been committe,
and there is sufficient cause to be
lieve the defendant guilty thereof
The writ issued herein is dismissed
Norcross. ].
We concur:
Fitzgerald. c. ].
/ TA1hof