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

told the defendant that he would
place him under arrest to appear be-
fore a court to answer the charge.
That re asked the defendant what he
had to say to the charge and that
the defendant SAID che would answer
before a 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 cousel upon either side
in the presentation of this case as
standing in different position from
the testimony relative to the state
ments Of the complainant heretofore
referred to, made without the pres
ence of the defendant. We think,
however, it presents question worthy
of careful consideration of court and
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 is 10
competent proof of the corpus deficit.
Two Witnesses, c. o. Wilson and A.
n. Jones, the deputy sheriff, gave tes-
timony relative to an admission
made by the defendant while he was
being taken upon the train from the
place where the offense is alleged -
Lave been committed to Hawthorne.
That portion Of the testimony of The
witness WnSOn relative to the Id
mission is as follows:
This defendant was brought into
the car at place called Shurz bet
ween here and Reno with Mr.. Jones
and young lady. | afterwards found
to be Harry Averill, and they took pos
session Of seat l had occupied up
to that time. | took the seat across
the aisle. Seaing 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 I
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
| don't know. The mother was hys-
terical and she made the remark I
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.
F, deputy sheriff. as to the admissions OF
the defendant to his wife On a 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
It will be conceded that the over.
whelming weight Of authority in this
country is to the effect that an extra
| judicial confession or admission Of
prisoner, not eorborated by m
dependent proof Of the corpus deficit,
| will not justify conviction. 1t is not
| requisite, however. that the crime
| charged be eonclusively establish ed
| by evidence independent Of the con
| fession or admission. 1t is sufficient
if there be other competent evIdenc
F.! tending to establish the fact Of the
| commission Of q crime
In people vs.. Bradley, ls WeHd IN
! W So, Nelson, c. j. said: Full
! proof Of the body Of tho crime. the
| corpus deficit, independently Of the
| confession is not required by any &!
! the cases: and in many of them slight
corroborating facts were held sufflci
| emit"
In the case OF state vs. Hall. 81 w
| Va. sos the Court said: I'VE know
of no decisions anywhere that hold
| the admissions of tho defendant are
not competent eidence tending t.
| prove the corpus deficit. Such admis
| sions may not be sufficient proof Il
| the corpus deficit, but they certaini,
are competent evidence tending Il
prove that the crime charged has beer
| committed"
| In the case of Matthews VS. State. ):
Ala. 1877; g Am. Rep. 69S. 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
| deficit must be as full and conclusive
as would be essential if there was
no confession to corroborate it. Evi
dence Of facts and circumstances, II
tending the particular offense, AMI
usually attending the commission o
similar offense-or of facts to the
! discovery of which the confession ha
led, and which would not probably
! have existed if the offense had no
been committed-or of facts having ;
just tendency to lead the mint
to the conclusion that the OF
Tense has been committed
would be admissible to cor
roborate the confession The weigh
which would be accorded them, whe
connected with the confession. tn
jury must determine, under proper il
structions from the Court"
The case of People VS.. Simpson. IL
Cal. BAG, cited in petitioners brie
is in line with the authorities abov
quoted The court in that case say
cine term corpus deiicti' means e