The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-13
SuPRERE COURT
GIVES 10 OPINIONS
CONTINUED from Page 2.

tween him aud others for the com
mission OF the crime, evidence as TO
acts or statements OF others must be
confined 10 such statements as were
I made or acts done. az times when the
proofs In the case permit OF q finding
4 that conspiracy existed and where
acts or statements of one of the de.
/ PENDANTS prior o the formation OF the
I conspiracy. are nadmissable as evl
dence against authors.
2 s--lmpeachmept Prior
/ Conshstens Statement--lt Is a gener
/ al rule that where evidence of con
! Trajectory statements Is offered for
/ Impeachment the credit OF Witness,
1 evidence OF statement made by him cn
/ former occasions .copsiFtent with his
evidence are inadmissahle. but. IL "a
charged that The result OF some rela-
ton to the party or cause, on of some
motive or personal interest his evi
dence may be suppef fted by showing
that he had made similar statement
before relation or motive existed.
3. Hearsay evidence OF death of
witness nfuenceient 10 render com
petent former evidence--prooi OF The
return of m officer on a subpoena that
the witness is dead. the same nor tber
ing authorized hy law, and by tho oral
evidence OF witnesses that They have
hecn informed OF his death Is unsuri
cent to establish this aa a fact 20 rem,
der competent in iinal trial the tes
tmony Of such Witness taken and
transcribed at the preliminary examl.
nation.
4. Accompice Instructions
Whether "a wlinyss is an accomphcc
Ir qrng corrOboratlon TO support a
conviction Is question ot fact Tor the
Jury. and hence an instruction chat
under Mansf DIG, Art 1919. Ind. r.
ANN St 1889 Ar. 1892, conviction
can nor be had on testimony Of ain ac-
compllce unless cOrr1burised, was sui-
icient and It was not an e.ror not TO
fulher charge that certain witness
I was an accomplice II defending re-
CARDS tho word accomplce as q tech.
nical one requiring definition by the
court, he should so request. but not
: ask for instruction tha a certain wit.
ness Is an accomplice; that being a
question for the jury.
o. instruction Mutua Combat--A
charge that IL defendant was informed
and believed that the deceased had
, taken possession OF field, claimed by
him and that he would be there with
an armed party on the morning OF the
/ killing. and that they had made
threats against the lie OF defendant
land Tie defendant knowing all ci these
things voluntarily organized q party
arming them with deadly weapons FOR
J The purpose oi meeting said parties iu
deadly conflict going TO The place of
the hlling and conEict ensued and
the deceased was killed. then such
conflict was q mutual combat, and an
ariics who knowingly and intention.
ally engaged Ia lt are guilty of murder.
was MT under the theory Of tho prose.
cution and the evidence in this ease
erroneous.
Transfer Of Cases.
Justice Hays renders two opinions
on motions filed by the Choctag okla.
homa a Gulf Railroad company 10 re-
move causes 10 The united states cir
cult court involving two issues which
were contested by both parties and
briefs submitted thereon. One is case
In which the paintin below instituted
suit in the lower court TO recovdt
$4,000 damages for personal injuries
judgement being rendered against the
, railroad company for $1,000 The queg.
ton raised was The plaintiffs power 80
transfer the ease 10 ihe federal court
which The court holds lhe company has
under The terms OF The enabling act
The syllabus OF tie upiuion follows.
IN action pending on She docket Ol
the United States Court Of Appeals fos
inc Indian Territory al the tihle Of ihe
admission OF the state biaintin who
was "a resident orthe lndIan"ferritoiB
piOr 10 statehood and has been q citi
zen of the state since its admission
alleges in her complaint that the de-.
4 feudant Is "A corporation, in fact is 4
cOrpOratiou organized under aud hy
virtue OF am act of congress and re-
cities such fact in q petition Tor remov
al of the case 10 The federal courts.
Held. that The action OF the plaintiff
larises under The laws OF the United
7 STATES. and that defendant under the
[ provisions OF section ~ Of the enabling
p act as amended, rs entitled tO have
case removed io circuit court of The
United States
u In the second case. siso q damaef
|NiNN0Is NNOAhNN ny - IT, AAtNAlAiANAAli
4 against the same company 40 recover
/. for damages for backwaier on bis farm
lby reason of grading of the company
line through The state. together With
/, The Rock Island and Oklahoma West
ern roads. who we're sued Jointly b>
The plaintiff ana in the lower court re
celyed Judgment for 500. The qurs
tion arising in This case Is thaf bur one
u of these companies in The suit was or
e eaniged upder NE aci of congress. ano
} therefore the case was moi transfer
2 lable Iht syllabus of the opinion
. Mitch follows indicates ihe holding o
B. the rouIi
q T. An action against federal rail
@ road corporation pending in fhs Unite,
a States court Of appeals for the Indian
Territory prior 10 ihe admission o
"A lhe state inl0 me Union is an actor
, .orsine under ihe laws of ihe lniies
" States. and under section lG Of ihe en-
'allinr act as amended. may be- ne
Z, moved 10 he federal courts.
= Although one OF The three Dc