ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

.....1133

Okanogan

845

307

App.) 603

1080

.1011

.1133

1134

.1134

812

...1135

..1124

[blocks in formation]

State. Shea (Okl.).
State v. Sheeks (Wash.).
State, Sillix v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State v. Smails (Wash.)

State, Smith v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Smith v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Speece v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Starr v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Stuart v. (Okl. Cr. Äpp.).
State v. Superior Court for
County (Wash.)..

Page

State v. Superior Court of King County (Wash.)

State, Talley v., two cases (Okl. Cr.
State v. Tenney (Wash.).

State, Thompson v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Thorp v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Tinker v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State v. Truskett (Kan.).
State, Tucker v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Tucker v. (Okl. Cr. App.)
State, Tunnard v. (Okl. Cr. App.)
State, Turner v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Waite v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Waits v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Waldock v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Ward v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Warren v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
State, Washington Dredging & Improve-
ment Co. v. (Wash.).

....

State, Wells Fargo & Co. v. (Okl.). State, Williams v. (Okl. Cr. App.). State, Willis v. (Okl. Cr. App.). State, Wilson v. (Okl. Cr. App.). State, Winn v. (Okl. Cr. App.). State, Wishard v. (Okl. Cr. App.).

Page

[blocks in formation]

611 Thomas, Robertson Mortg. Co. v. (Wash.) 312 .1133 Thomas Haverty Co., Bank of Arizona v.

(Ariz.)

73

356 Thompson, Burt v. (Okl.).

.1016

.1026 Thompson. McCants v. (Okl.).

600

Thompson v. Seek (Kan.)

397

Thompson v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). Thorp v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).

..1011

609

[blocks in formation]

Tucker v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).

..1133

Tucker v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).

.1134

Tucson Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. v. Goulding (Ariz.)..

..1136

Tunnard v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)..

603

Tunnel Mining & Leasing Co. v. Cooper

(Colo.)

901

Turley v. Hayes & Shirk (Okl.).

769

Stepp v. Wichita Falls & N. W. R. Co.

Turner v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).

.1134

(Okl.)

.1012

Turnham v. Calumet & O. Min. Co. (Or.) 157

[blocks in formation]

Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Times-Mirror Co. v. (Cal. App.).
Superior Court of Sacramento County,
Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Cal. App.)..1091
Superior Court of Sacramento County,
Western Union Tel. Co. v. (Cal.).......1100
Sutton v. Heinzle (Kan.).
Sutton, St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. (Okl.)..1124
Sweatt, Everett v. (Wash.).
.1135
Sweigert, Edwards v. (Cal. App.).
Swett-Davenport Lumber Co. v. Quartararo
(Cal. App.)..

560

Walker, Love v. (Or.).
Ward v. Richards (Okl.).

Ward v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)....
Warren v. Kearney (Wash.).
Warren v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)..
Washington Dredging & Improvement Co.
v. State (Wash.)...
Washington Nav. Co., Dean v. (Or.).
Washington Water Power Co., Gibbert v.
(Idaho)

Waldock v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)..... .1134 Walker v. Beaumont Land & Water Co.

(Cal. App.).

766

296

791

.1134

739

812

..1135

...

284

924

S. Winston & Sons, Bretch Bros. v. (Okl.) 795 Sylvester v. Olson (Wash.).

Washington Water Power Co. v. Waters (Idaho)

682

175

Synhorst, Oliver v. (Or.).

594

Taggart v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (Kan.)

Washoe Copper Co. v. Junila (Mont.).
Waters, Washington Water Power Co. v.
(Idaho)
Weare v. Baker (Mont.).

917

...

682

1136

534

Talley, Robertson v. (Kan.).

640

Talley v. State, two cases (Okl. Cr. App.).. 603
Taylor v. Abbott (Kan.).
Templeton v. Lloyd (Or.).
Templeton v. Lloyd (Or.)..
Tenney, State v. (Wash.)

...

...

979 Wells, Johnson v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1067 Wells Fargo Co., Rick v. (Utah). ..1068 Wells Fargo & Co. v. State (Okl.).

......

Weatherall v. Weatherall (Wash.). Weber v. Whidden (Wash.). Weldon v. Rogers (Cal.).

.1078

.1046

464

375

991

.1124

[blocks in formation]

[Cases in which rehearings have been denied, without the rendition of a written opinion, since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Reporter.]

Adams v. McKenzie (Or.) 114 P. 460.

Filson v. Pacific Exp. Co. (Kan.) 114 P. 863. Gerking v. Laidlaw (Or.) 114 P. 922.

Johnson v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 114 P. 339.

Linscott v. Moseman (Kan.) 114 P. 1088. O'Neil v. City of Portland (Or.) 113 P. 655. Steen v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 114 P. 342. Wells v. Great Northern R. Co. (Or.) 114 P. 92. Winslow v. Rutherford (Or.) 114 P. 930.

THE

PACIFIC REPORTER

VOLUME 115

(19 Idaho, 692)

STATE v. GRUBER. (Supreme Court of Idaho. April 19, 1911.)

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION ($ 128*)JOINDER OF OFFENSES.

Under the provisions of section 7681, Rev. Codes, an indictment or information must charge but one offense, but the same offense may be set

forth in different forms under different counts. and, where the offense may be committed by the use of different means, the means may be alleged in the alternative in the same count. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 403-413; Dec. Dig. § 128.*]

2. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION (§ 128*)JOINDER OF Offenses "MURDER IN FIRST DEGREE."

In an information charging murder in the first degree, the prosecutor may charge the same offense in two counts; one count alleging the murder to have been committed willfully, deliberately, and with malice aforethought, and the other count charging that the murder was committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, robbery. In the latter case, proof that the murder was committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, robbery brings the case within the definition of "murder in the first degree," as contained in section 6562, Rev. Codes, and such proof supplies the place of proof of deliberation and premeditation.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 403-413; Dec. Dig. 128.*

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, pp. 4637-4641; vol. 8, p. 7727.]

3. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 595*) – CONTINUANCE DISCRETION OF COURT.

An application for a continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and there is no abuse of discretion in denying such application, where the party applying fails to show that if the continuance should be granted he could procure material evidence tending to establish his defense, which he could not reasonably expect to produce, unless such continuance should be granted. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 595.*]

4. HOMICIDE (§ 174*) - MURDER-TRIAL-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE.

Where an information charges that murder has been committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, robbery, it is proper to show that the deceased had money or valuables on his person prior to his death, and that his money or other valuables had been taken from

him; and it is likewise competent to show that the defendant was in impecunious and necessitous circumstances prior to the time of the homicide, and that he had money soon thereafter, or that he had property or valuables soon after the homicide which had belonged to the deceased.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 359-371; Dec. Dig. § 174.*] 5. HOMICIDE (§ 142*)—CRIMINAL LAW (§ 628*)

-MURDER-TRIAL-ADMISSIBILITY OF EVI

DENCE.

Certain evidence as to the identification of the watch claimed to have been taken from the

body of the deceased, and the evidence of a witness in identifying handwriting, examined, and held that it was properly admitted.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Homicide, Dec. Dig. § 142;* Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1409-1411, 1413-1419; Dec. Dig. § 628.*] 6. WITNESSES (§ 277*)-CROSS-EXAMINATION— SCOPE.

Under the provisions of section 6079, Rev. Codes, a witness may be cross-examined by the opposite party "as to any facts stated in his direct examination, or connected therewith."

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. § 277.*] 7. WITNESSES (§ 277*)-CROSS-EXAMINATION-SCOPE.

Where the defendant testified to going to a specified place or city with another, and to spending the night with such person, and gave no further testimony as to his movements, or when he left such place, it was not error to permit the prosecuting attorney on cross-examination to ask the defendant when he left the place to which he and the other party had gone.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. § 277.*] WITNESSES 8. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1186*) (§ 277*) APPEAL - HARMLESS ERROR-ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE.

Where a defendant became a witness in his

own behalf and testified concerning his early life, and as to his acquaintance with a third party, and concerning a trip taken by him and a party who was afterwards murdered, and made no reference to any property owned by the deceased, and no mention of a transaction in which certain property claimed to have belonged to the deceased was pawned, it was error for the court to allow the prosecuting attorney to ask the defendant on cross-examination if he gave a pawn ticket to a third party for certain of the deceased's property.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3215-3219; Dec. Dig. § 1186;* Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. § 277.*1

For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes 115 P.-1

9. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 814*)-INSTRUCTIONS-INSANITY.

It is not error for the trial court to re

fuse to give an instruction to the jury as to the law covering the defense of insanity, where there is no evidence introduced on the part of the defendant tending to show that he was insane at the time of the commission of the of fense.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1821; Dec. Dig. § 814.*] 10. CRIMINAL LAW ($, 814*)-INSTRUCTIONS— REPUTATION OF ACCUSED.

It is not error for the trial court to refuse

Fred Gruber was convicted of murder, and he appeals from the judgment and an order denying a new trial. Affirmed.

McBee & La Veine, for appellant. D. C. McDougall, Atty. Gen., and O. M. Van Duyn and J. H. Peterson, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

AILSHIE, P. J. The appellant was prosecuted on information by the county attorney on the charge of the murder of one John H. to give to the jury an instruction to the effect Billings, and was convicted of murder in that the law presumes that the defendant sustained a good reputation prior to the commis- the first degree and sentenced to be hanged. sion of the alleged offense, where no evidence This appeal is from the judgment and an orhas been introduced touching his character order denying a motion for a new trial. reputation, and no issue has been made touching his reputation with reference to any trait or quality, or in any respect.

In order to intelligently deal with the errors assigned, it will be necessary to briefly state some of the leading facts which are disclosed by the record, and on which

[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1839; Dec. Dig. § 814.*] 11. WITNESSES (§ 277*)-CROSS-EXAMINATION the conviction was had. The defendant was OF ACCUSED-SCOPE.

Under the Constitution (section 13, art. 1) and the statute (section 7357, Rev. Codes), no person can be compelled in a criminal action to become a witness against himself, and the court should instruct the jury in a proper case that no presumption can be raised against the defendant by reason of his refusal to testify; but, where the defendant voluntarily submits himself as a witness in his own behalf, he may be cross-examined by the state, subject to the same rules and regulations governing cross-examination that apply to other witnesses.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 925, 979-984; Dec. Dig. § 277.* 12. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 787*)-NEW TRIAL-IN

STRUCTIONS.

Where the court permitted the prosecutor to ask a question on cross-examination which was not proper cross-examination, and it appears that the question was one that did not prejudice the defendant's rights, and did not prejudice him in any substantial manner, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury that the defendant had properly declined to answer such question, and that his refusal to answer should not be construed against him.

an electrician in the employ of a carnival show company, and he seems to have been generally known by the name of Fred George. On about the 3d of December, 1909, John H. Billings was working at his trade as a carpenter in the fair grounds of the apple show in Spokane. Defendant was then a young man of the age of about 20 years, and was at that time in a poor financial condition; in fact, he was apparently without any money. At that time he had in his possession what purported to be a letter from a man named Harry George, whom he represented as owning a chicken ranch in the neighborhood of Coeur d'Alene City in this state. Billings was a man of the age of about 45 years, and he had a small sum of money, somewhere perhaps from $35 to $50. On the latter date, December 3d, at the solicitation of defendant and for the purpose of securing employment, Billings went with the defendant to Cœur d'Alene City to see

[Ed. Note.--For other cases, see Criminal Harry George and secure work on his chicken

Law, Dec. Dig. § 787.*]

13. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1119*)-APPEAL-REVIEW- - CONDUCT OF TRIAL ARGUMENT OF PROSECUTOR.

Where the conduct of a prosecutor in making certain statements in the course of his argument to the jury is assigned as error, the defendant should set forth in his statement or bill of exceptions the language of the prosecuting attorney with sufficient certainty and definiteness. together with the circumstances and conditions under which it was made, and the context thereof, to enable this court to determine whether or not the same was prejudicial to any substantial right of the defendant.

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2929; Dec. Dig. § 1119.*] 14. HOMICIDE (§ 253*)-Murder-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

Evidence in this case examined, and held sufficient to justify the verdict and judgment. [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 523-532; Dec. Dig. § 253.*]

Appeal from District Court, Kootenai County: Robert N. Dunn, Judge.

ranch. They arrived at Coeur d'Alene City and stopped at the Cœur d'Alene Inn. During the evening of that day they made a number of inquiries at different residences as to the location of the Harry George chicken ranch. They were unsuccessful in locating George, or learning anything of his whereabouts, and later in the evening they returned to the hotel, and retired for the night; both occupying the same room and the same bed. The next morning they renewed their search for Harry George; they went into the outskirts of the town and beyond on the east side, and were seen by several persons on the forenoon of that day. One witness testified that they came to her home 22 miles east of Coeur d'Alene at 15 minutes past 11 o'clock on the forenoon of December 4th. This was the last time that the defendant was seen in that vicinity, or in fact in the state, on that day. It was also the last time, so far as the evidence discloses,

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »