The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1913-03-24

wound upon the uterus could have
been inflicted by the deceased, herself,
it is not error to- sustain an objection
to a further question propounded upon
such cross examination as to whether
it is not a fact within medical knowl-
edge that Intentional abortions are Of
ten performed by the use. of needles,
knitting needles, lead pencils, or other
instruments. -
7. Where matters are not in dispute
and are repeatedly testified to and fully
conceded by the witnesses for the state,
1t is not necessarily reversible error in
a criminal case to exclude questions
which are merely cumulative and in
atfirmance of that which the states
witnesses freely admit. g.,
8. The extent of cross=examination
is within the sound discretion of the
court. .
8. 1t is not necessary that a person
should be a graduate Of a medical COL
lege or. duly licensed to practice, in
order that he may give testimony as an
expert medical witness, where the wit
ness testified that he was a physician
and surgeon, had praetioed for eigh-
teen years and treated all kinds of all
ments, s~icknesses and performed surgi-
cal work as his qualifications to so
testify was sufficiently proved.
10. Various instructions examined
vi dtlIlOHEu IEoL dppEOFSuy IlbtOg HUI
to be prejudicia1 or to constitute re-
versible error ...
IL. An instruction to. the effect that
If any witness has been shown to
have wilfully and knowingly testified
falsely in regard to some material mat
ter, you are at liberty to disregard
his testimony entirely, unless corrob-
grated by credible testimony" held, to
be a sufficiently definite statement Of
tho lnyy ,tunn III. afihi6df
IL. The trial Judge said: THE
courts at this time will submit to the
jury a written charge, but owing to the
fact that there is but counsel for
the defense and that his time has. been
thoroughly taken up during the prog
ress of the trial so that he has not
had proper and sufficient time to con-
slider the charge in order to file his
! written exceptions thereto, which he
would be required to do before the
charge was given, the court will per-
init the defendant to consider the
charge the same as If it had been de-
1ivered orally and save to him his right
to file exceptions thereto the same as
il it were an oral charge" Held, that
under sections 9ss7. 1888 and 1007S, R.
G. 1905, such exceptions were requir-
ed by the order to be fled within
twenty days. and that unless such eX-
ceptions were so filed the right there
to was waived. (FIske, j., dissenting.)
ia. Evidence examined and held, to
sustain the verdict.
IA. It is not error to refuse to grant
a new trial on the ground of newly
discovered evidence where the evidence
discovered is merely cumulative, and
does not tend to make "a doubtful case
clear"
is. The refusal OF a new trial can
not DO assigned as error where, as a
matter OF fact, no motion for the same
was made or presented, but merely a
notice served Of an intention SO to
move. The SAME is true of assign
rnents OF error which relate merely to
the suficiBncy OF the evidence.
(Syllabus by the court.l
Appeal from district court Of Cav
/ alier county, Hon. A. q. Burr, Judge
sitting by request.
Defendant was convicted Of the
crime OF murder In the second degree
and appeals.
Affirmed.
Opinion of the court by Bruce. j.
Fisk, j., dissents on proposition No.
IL. Spalding. G. IT., ooncurB, except
that he expresses no opinion on the
Instruction to the jury.
b. r, SinIkler and j. A. Heder, Minot.
for appellant.
q. Crimson, states attorney OF Cav
| alier county, Langdon, n Andrew Mil
Ter, attorney general, for respondent.