The Central Nevadan. [volume] (Battle Mountain, Nev.) 1885-1907, 1907-09-19

/, of A. y. Maestrettl, Esq, Dlstrlc
: Attorney, change of venue wal
| ordered and the case sent to Elk
county for trial. The defendant
t was ordered into the custody of thu
Sheriff of Lander county, to be by
him delivered to the Sheriff oil
Elko county without bonds.
Protest of District Attorney
After the disposal of the Dwyel
case and he had been removed from
the court room, District Attorney
Maestretti arose and asked for per.
mission, as II privilege, to make u
statement in regard to part of the
decision of the Supreme Court
Dlr. Maestretti spoke as follows:
IF it please the Court at this
time | wish to rise to the question
of privilege in relation to state
ment made in the disposition of
this case, wherein it was reserved
in the Supreme Court, and that is
this, IN its decision the Supreme
Court has stated in substance that
the theory of the prosecution in
this case was that Dwyer killed
Williams through mistake while
looking for man named O'Brien
with whom the Defendant had had
trouble during the day over a pros
titute.
Il wish to state at this time that
that is absolutely not the fact,
further than there is nothing in the
records from the first page to the
last which suggests, or would war;
rant the Supreme Court in making
such a statement in its decision,
and where anything is shown on
that record upoa which the Su-
preme Court renders such deci-
sion is beyond my understanding"
The Court Comments on Decision
Here the Court, upon the protest
of the District Attorney. comment
ed as follows:
81 highly comm. nd you, Mr..
District Attorney, for the steps you
have taken to put yourself right
with the. public in a matter SO
closely yconnected with your onerous
official duties. The statement in
the decision of the Supreme Court
which you have contradicted, | al
so know to be utterly without
founf alton. Ycu were alone in the
case for the State and say you did
not conduct its prosecution upon
the theory of mistake, nor is there
anything in the record to SO in-
dicatc.
THE Supreme Court, being the
tribunal under our judicial system
to which has been given, so to say,
the last word, that tribunal, it
seems to me, should be exception
ally careful to make no statement
having a tendency to unjustly re-
fleet upon or misstate the position
of any officer, party or witness con-
nected with the trial of cause.
$50 far as it appears to me- by the
stenographic record on file, the
statement in the opinion as written
by Judge Norcross, to which OBJ
lection has been made like some
other assertions in the same, alb
normally strange document, is
neither fair to you as prosecuting
officer, nor to this Court; and
whether or not it was made for the
purpose of bolstering up decis-
ion, which. TO my mind, is neither
founded ON law nor support by
fact, and is palpable reversal OF
the MILAN case, which for 40 years
has been the law of this State OH
the question of change of venue
it was highly reprehensible for its
author, or authors, to have made
it. l used the world 'reprehen.
sible, let me say as a modifica'
tion,-'reprehensihle'--i the Court
knew what it was doing, .pitiable,
4 If it did not.
"The Clerk will spread the re-
marks of District Attorney Macs
,, tretti, with the remarks by thu
, Court in the minutes of this day.
session.