The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1911-04-06

stroke on the head. That the in
PRODUCTION of the said skull was not
necessary under the issues in this
case and that there was no occasion
for its introduction. That its in
PRODUCTION was in fact highly pre-
judicial to this defendant, and ex-
cited the passion and prejudice of
the jury.
That the defendants objections to
the introduction of the skull of
Bertha Zornes, the ruling thereon
and the exceptions thereto, fully APP
pear in the minutes of the testimony
taken down by the official shorthand
reporter in this case.
18th. The court erred in giving
each and every instruction in this
case from number one to number
twenty-five inclusive. Said instruc-
tions do not contain the law. That
the defendant at the time of the
giving of said instructions objected
and excepted to the giving Of each
and every one of said instructions.
The records of the official short
hand reporter in this case will so
show. The defendant still excerpts
to the giving of each of said instruc-
tons.
18th. The court specially erred
in giving Instruction No. 8, for the
reason that the case does not con-
tain the law in this case and injects
into this case means of committing
the crime of murder wholly unwar-
ranted by any evidence in this case.
The court instructs the jury that
murder may be perpetrated by lying
in wait, by poison, etc., or in the
preparation or attempt to perpe-
trate any arson, rape, robbery, may
hem or burglary. That no such
elements appear from the evidence
in this case, and said instruction is
therefore contrary to the law and
prejudicial to the defendant, espec-
tally in connection with Instruction
No. IL. That the defendant at the
time of giving of said instruction OBJ
jected and excepted thereto, and still
excerpts thereto.
18th. The court especially erred
in giving instruction No. IL, for the
reason that said instruction does not
contain the law in this case, and pre-
sents to the jury the question of the
deceased being killed by the defen-
dant while lying in wait or in an
attempt to commit arson, etc., and
the same was prejudicial to the de-
PENDANT. That at the time the said
instruction was given the defendant
objected and excepted thereto and
still excerpts.
18th. The court especially erred
in giving instruction No. IS for the
reason that the, same minim!:es the
defense of previous good reputation
as a peacable, quiet citizen. That
tie same Dies not contain the law.
That the defendant at the TIME the
sane was given objer,'I aud ex-
cepted thereto, and still excerpts.
18th. The court especially erred
in giving Instruction 1917 for the
reason that the same Is contrary to
the law. That it specially had a
tendency to discredit the testimony
of Miss Nora Dobson, who acted as
official reporter for the county and
took down the testimony on the pre-
liminary, and who, after reading her
shorthand notes and refreshing her
memory, testified to what certain
witnesses swore to on said prelim-
mary. That said instruction should
have informed the jury that if said
statements were written down by the
witness, etc., then it should have
more or even greater weight and
was not the lowest grade of evidence.
That the defendant at the time the
said instruction was given objected
and excepted thereto and still ex-
cepts.
18th. The court erred in refusing
to give Instructions Nos i, 2, and
4 as requested by the defendant, as
each of the said instructions con-
tanned the law and should have been
given, and no other instructions
were given fully covering the in
structions asked.
That the defendant, at the time
the said instructions were asked, OBJ
jected and excepted to the refusal
of the court to give each and every
one of the said instructions, and
the defendant still excerpts to the
failure and refusal of the court to
give the said instructions.
10Th. The court especially erred
in refusing to give instruction No. 1
asked by the defendant, for the rea-
son that this case was tried, and the
evidence introduced and the case ar
gued, largely upon the question of
conspiracy and of aiding and abet-
ting, and that no elements of con-
spiracy or of abetting in fact ex-
listed in this case so far as this de-
PENDANT was concerned, and the fail
ure of the court to give said instruc-
ton was prejudicial to the right1 of
the defendant and permitted the jury
to consider the question of conspir-
acy and of aiding and abetting, when
nothing of that kind was in fact
involved in this case.
That the defendant especially ex-
cepted to the refusal of the court
to give the said instruction at and
before the time the said instruction
was offered and refused, and still
excerpts thereto.
Goth. That the arguments made
to the jury by the attorneys for the
state were, upon request of the de-
PENDANT, taken down by w. M. Hy-
land, official shorthand reporter in