Amador ledger., 1910-12-30
COURT DECISION
Continued from Page 1

about the matter, stated well,
Johns (meanng Delucchi's) face
was all over blood, and he said three
or four jumped on him out there and
was beating him. He got up and came
in here, and gave him the gun and
told him to go out and defend himself.
That is about the sum and substance
of it. -
It is not shown by the record of the
preliminary examination that Delucchi
and Coffman had any further conver-
saton, or that Coffman was present or
Witnessed or had knowledge of the
trouble thereafter ensuing between
Delucchi and Lopez, or performed any
other act in the matter Delucchi,
after receiving the revolver, holding it
behind him, walked out of the hotel
and advanced toward Lopez. Upon
reaching the street, according to the
testimony of Lopez, as shown by the
record, he pointed the pistol toward
him lopez and scuffle took place
between them during which Delucchi
was disarmed by Lopez. There is in
the record no evidence from any other
witness that Delucchi was seen to
point the gun at Lopez.
The proposition arising from the re-
cord of the preliminary examination
is this Can one who has simply wit
messed part of an affray in the
street, and returned to his place of
business, and thereafter sees one of
the participants with whom it may
be inferred that he is on some terms
of intimacy appear inside his place
of business with his face covered
with blood, complaining that three or
four have jumped on him and were
beating him, be held to answer as
an accomplice in an assault thereafter
committed by such participant when
the only action and advice of the one
SO witnessing is to hand revolver to
such participant and tell him to go
out ana de1end nlmSelI.
Banishing from the mind the resent
ment that arises from the lmprudent
and censurable act of arming a man
with gun, who has just been worsted
in an encounter to ask the foregoing
question is to answer it.
In the administration of justice, GER
tain general principles of law must be
followed, regardless of the fact
whether the guilty may or may not
20 unpunished in a particular case
(by this / am not assuming that the
defendant may have done something
not appearing in the evidence taken
down at the preliminary examination
that would have made him guilty OF
any crime whatever, and stating the
principle or rule involved in this case,
let it be- supposed, for example. that
Amador City had been deserted dur
ing this trouble save and excepting
for the presence of Delucchi, Coffman
and Lopez; that after handing the re-
volver to DeIucchi with the advice
and instruction to go out and defend
himself, Coffman had beheld Delucchi
creep up behind Lopez and administer
a fatal blow.
Now, by the express provision of
section I'LL of our penal code con-
viction cannot be had on the testimony
of an accompllce, without other testi-
mony tending to connect the defendant
with the commission of the offense.
If this defendant can be held upon
this record taken at the preliminary
examination to be an accompllce and
guilty of an assault of any degree
perpetrated by Delucchi, then here is
an absolute demonstration that had
there been a foul murder committed
by Delucchi under circumstances above
mentioned, no conviction of any crime
whatever could have been had, against
him. Notwithstanding the positive
evidence of Coffman.
The absurdity of calling Coffman an
accomplice and holding his evidence to
be insufficient to sustain a verdict OF
conviction against Delucchi IN a sup
posed murder committed as above IL
lustrated is apparent and yet it is
but the natural and logical conclusion
that follows in an endeavor to charge
Coffman as an accomplice in an assault
perpetrated by Delucchi as set forth
in the record of the preliminary ex
animation. 1t is poor rule that does
not work both ways, but the rule il
the same for ascertaining what con
stitutes an accomplice, whether in it
annlicatinn To diversifving state O