The silver state news. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1907-1909, 1907-11-25

matters and things that happened at
the trial in said court in Lander
county, and criticising wrongfully and
unjustly the district attorney of said
county in his conduct of said trial and
the rulings of defendant thereon, and
being without further information
whatsoever of even the word "mis-
take' having been uttered in con
nection with the homicide in the ar
! gument before the said supreme court.
as it had not been before the district
court, he made the statements and
caused them to be entered in the
minutes of the district court of Ian
der county aforesaid.
That the order to have said state
ments entered on the minutes of said
district court as aforesaid was made
by said defendant and by him alone;
that the district attorney of Lander
county did not and could not have
knowledge of such entry on the min
utes for the reason that the same was
made without generalization and for
the purpose of showing exactly what
had taken place and to prevent false
or exaggerated reports of the same
from going abroad, and defendant ex-
pressly submits that if any blame or
responsibility should attach in the
opinion Of the court for such action of
defendant, it should fall to the lot of
defendant extensively and in ne way
to that of the said district attorney.
That this defendant first became
aware of the question of mistake
was ever relied on at the trial in the
district court, for such is not the fact,
but because the reference to "mis-
take' by the attorney general before
the supreme court might have misled
said court in its ruling.
8. That when the defendant read
in the opinion bf the supreme court of
the state of Nevada the following
language, to-wit:
"The theory of the state if we un.
derstand it, was that the defendant
killed Williams by mistake.' he the
said defendant felt not only aggriev-
ed, but that an unjust reflection had
been east upon his court for the rea-
son that under such a theory it would
have been the duty Of the said district
court to have given an instruction to
the jury upon the law las to what de
gree of crime, if any, homicide com.
mitted by mistake belonged to, and
as no such instruction was given OF
asked for, the said defendant, for the
time being at least, believed certain
of his rulings were not considered by
the supreme court.
a. Defendant with all possible
Difference, claims the right at all
times to differe in opinion with the
supreme court, state or national, on
any Of the judges thereof, or their
opinions on matters of law, if in his
judgment they are fairly the subject
of comment, but he does not believe,
and never has, in criticising unfairly
any court, judge or opinion, and will
not do So, and defendant denies EN-
phatically that in any action or word
of his was it his intention to impugn
the integrity, honor, or dignity of the
supreme court of the state of Nevada
or any of it's honorable members. and
defendant is surprised and %disappoint-
ed that the affidavit of the attorney
general should contain aught tending
to question the respect of the defend
ant for said supreme court and the
members thereof.
5. Defendant deeply regrets the
happening Oh the incident winch mas
given rise to these proceedings and
regrets that his language used as
aforesaid should have received the
construction given it in the said aft
davit of the honorable attorney gen
eral, for such was not the intention of
the defendant at the time and never
has been.
CAMPBELL, NELSON g. DREW,
w. B. PITTMAN,
RARTLETT & THATCHER.