majority"> Pee, CuRiAM.

The principal question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury.

There was no charge of conspiracy in the indictment, which was drawn in accordance with the provisions of C. S., 4175, consequently, the inquiry arises: Did the defendant “counsel, procure, or command” Fred Wade to commit the crime?

The evidence tends to show the following facts:

(a) All the parties were actively engaged in the liquor business.

(b) The defendant carried certain empty kegs to the scene of the crime about an hour before sunset.

(d) The defendant carried the killer in his automobile to a point near the clay-hole or sand-pit in which he concealed himself until the victim arrived about 6 :30.

(e) The defendant told Tom Williams, who carried the killer from the scene, “that Fred was down at the clay-hole and did not have a coat, and for Tom to go get Fred a coat.”

(f) The defendant turned his car over to Tom “and told him to go down to the clay-hole, that Fred wanted a coat, and that he would tell him what to do.”

*709 Tbe foregoing facts, and others of like import, tend to show that tbe defendant knew wbat was going on. Moreover, they tend to show that the defendant was active in procuring a coat for the killer and in furnishing an automobile as a means of flight after the crime had been committed. There was much evidence to the contrary, and the jury could have drawn from it either the inference of guilt or the conclusion of innocence, and, therefore, the cause was properly submitted to the twelve.

It is proper to say that, in the main, this opinion was prepared by Mr. Justice Brogden prior to his recent illness.

After a thorough consideration of the record, we find no sufficient cause for disturbing the verdict or the judgment.

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress