The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1915-03-11
MAY COMMIT ROBBERY
WITHOUT NEED OF MONEY
IDAHO COURT SAYS ALL ROB
BERs NOT BRoKE-JuDGE
MAY TAKE NAP.

The case of State vs.. Allen, reported
In 20 Idaho 77Z, SHOWS that counsel for
the defendant, In appealing from
conviction for robbery, assigned as an
error of the trial judge the latter's
refusal to permit him to show that the
defendant was in comfortable circurn-
stances and accordingly there was no
necessity for him to rob another to get
money. The appellate court, in reject
ing the contention, said:
The argument advanced in support
of this a signment OF error Is that pow
erty ana hunger and want are strong
incentives to crime, and especially to
the crime of robbery, and that since
the state had shown in this case that
the real crime that was planned and
that defendants were trying to carry
out was that of robbery and that de-
PENDANT was hard up and broke the
defendant might show lack of motive
to commit the crime of robbery by
showing that he had plenty of money
and property of his own and that he
was not pressed by hunger or short
Of money as claimed by the state.
Counsel cite the case of Jacob VS.. Esau,
Gen. XIV, 20, as showing what hunger
will drive men to do. This is persua-
sive, and there is an element of merit
in the contention, but it would be a
very dangerous rule to adopt and an
erroneous conclusion to reach to sup
pose those who are hungry or broke
are the only ones who commit crime
--even the crime of robbery OF course
those who are in better circumstances
frequently adopt an easier, more gen
teel and less dangerous method of
robbing their victims than that of 60
ing out with a six-shooter and holding
them up but the results accomplished
amount to the same thing"
Sleep and Smoke in Court.
There is some justification for a
Judge smoking and sleeping in court,
according to the decision of the appel
late court in Musselman vs. Mussel-
man, "A Ind. LOT, in which the court
rejected errors assigned by counsel as
grounds for reversing the trial court
Commenting on the two grounds the
court said:
"1S. The court erred in smoking
and permitting Hon. D. D. Pratt and
other attorneys to smoke in open
court and during the trial of said
cause, by which plaintiff was permit
ted from having fair trial The
above does not deserve much consider
alton. It does not appear that the APP
pellant objected to smoking in court Of
that it had any injurious effect upor
him. We can not see how smoking il
court prevented him from having {
fair trial. 10. The court erred II
sleeping, or sitting with his eyes clos
ed, In open court during the reading o
the written evidence upon the part o
the plaintiff in said cause, at the tria
Of said cause, by which the plaintiff
was prevented from having a fai
trial. The above reason for a new
trial Is very vague and indefinite. |
the appellant, who was PERSONAL!
present in court, was unable to de
termne whether the judge was reall,
asleep or only had his eyes closed how
ARE we to determine? 1t is said t
have occurred while the appellant wa
reading his written evidence, If h
had reason to suppose that the judg
was indulging in a gentle doze afte
dinner, he should have suspended hi
reading or awakened the judge. No
does 1t appear what portion of tn
written evidence was being read. Their
was much of it wholly immaterlal an
irrelevant We might reasonably con
clude that the judge but initiated tn
example of many of the profoundes
thinkers and most distinguish
Judges and closed his eyes that h
might hear the more accurately an
more fully comprehend what he ha
heard"
. !
MILL SCRAP PILE