The daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1906-1907, 1906-11-07
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Continued from Page 81

("HoSe uIueE name, IL any, Is W lUc
Grand Jury unknown) and Joe 1ba-
pah, an Indian. (whOse other name,
if any, is to the Grand Jury unknown)
are accused by the Grand Jury of the
County of Elko, State Of Nevada, byI
this indictment of the crime Of MUIR
,-er. committed as follows, to wit:
That the said defendants. johnny,
an Indian, and Joe Ibapah. an Indian
on or about the z'.h day of Decem
Der, a. D. 1905 in the County Of Elko,
State of Nevada. and before the find
ing Of this indictment, without an
thOritv of law, felOniOusly, wilfully,
nnlawfully and Of their malice afore-
thought, killed a certain human being,
herein designated as Fred Foreman,
wnose true name is to the Grand Jury l
unknown, by striking, cutting and /
stabbing the said Fred Foreman with
knives: whereof and by means OF
Ne striking, cutting and stabbsrl;
aforesaid. the said Fred Foreman
then and there died
Counsel Tor 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
coInHllltSd. AASO' 'ho'' ~ 'P
fic acts alleged. VIZ, the eut'iiis' eot
are not alleged TO nave oeeh uohe
with intent to Kill"
The Indictment follows suostan-
TALLY the form suggested by our
statute. (Ccmp. Laws sec fZoo,)
The act charged as the offense Is.
we think. clearly ana olsunchy SET
forth II ordinary ana concise lah-
guaGe and il such manner as 10
enahIe person II common unue,
standing 20 know what was lhleoaeu.
and with such HHGree Oh cer'"i"'s
rs 10 enable coul' ~ ploi'o ~
Judgment upon cohNi''io" az
10 The right If ta2 case, ana Il lS'
therefore sufficient. comp. hd"9'
Scr 4-,,A
2 After the state had rested its
case counsel for the defendant John
ny announced hat his client also,
rested and on his beha.. moved that
the case lie given to tie jury q; ms
time before any testimony Is olisleu !,
on behalf of the defendant lbapah
Counsel IN stated to tne court aS
raacon for making this motion, that
Mr.. Taber. counsel for Japan, III
forms me thai the defendant lbapah
viii take the stand III his own behaii
49,, naiiaya ih2uahs testimony viii
he n,,ai,,:,icial L the defendant, John
ny. s.o +.,-i,s time 4
ne o'a A. natir, denied it, an(
col9i'eI tn ,ierroa ac error
'iiiS ,eo -, SEQ inclusive. of on
CRIMINAL Practice Act Comp. Laws
secs ..25-4327) provides as follows
si;3225 Sec. $50. When TWO
dote,dants are Jointly indict >.
for any offense, they shall be JOINT
tried unless for good cause shown D
tho prosecution or defense, the cour
- otborwiso direct.
432e Sec. 361. When TWO or NOR
,,or,ons are included in the same il
6ic,ment the court may al any tim
.,afnro tho defendant has gone int
oeioo +ho ,nnlicatiOn of tn
,,:s.,,in, tCrnev. direct any defenC
bi9'il'' a;.ohareea from the indie
an -. no NAV he a witness fo
nieh''
me peop 900 When two O
- versions are Included in tn
r,mo indictment and the court Is
nin;on that in regard to a particula
s,a,,+ tbora is not sufficient ev
Loo RI MT n m on his defense,
cb,l order him to be discharged 1rol
,bo Indictment. before the eVldenc
sb,n he deemed closed, that he ma
witness for his codefendant.
defendant Jointly Indicted wit
another who intends to demand
ano,r rial must make his motto
se!''' ave w. t;o, Of tho iurv
oelole ny lCt.te McLane,
comm enc ''"
Nev. oo'.y r,;tted the defendai
10 nave n III. case submitte
Johnny ~ ,nnn tho conclusic
and deterliiineu oool ,;d in effec
Of the o'a'e ."'e .anarate trif
have gwen MN Sp..n Noon
which would hot oi. ~ eto+rte h
plain violation o. tne sa =.
might have nee ,lla i'' Concerned.
ibapah case Wa neoo oon Ionnnv
Conhsei loI VIZ