70 Iowa 748 | Iowa | 1886
I. The decision of this case demands the consideration of many questions raised by counsel for defendant. They will receive such consideration and discussion as their nature and importance demand.
Objection is made to the indictment on the ground that it does not charge a crime prescribed by the laws of this state.
II. Counsel urge, with a great deal of earnestness, that the evidence entirely fails to show the guilt of defendant,
There is evidence tending to show improper intimacy between them. The mother, sister and brother of the woman were with her before her death. The defendant was her physician, and treated and nursed her while they were with her; being constantly in the room with her, and even refusing to leave at her .request. He informed.them that she would not recover, and imparted the same information to the woman. After this she informed these relations more than once that she was dying, or about to die, and in the same or other conversations stated that her sickness and approaching death were the result of a miscarriage caused by defendant, who had used instruments to produce it. She made these statements in defendant’s presence, but in the Swede language, which it appears defendant did not understand.
III. Counsel for defendant insist that the statements of the woman on her death-bed were not competent as dying
IV. Counsel for defendant has a great deal to say, in the nature of complaints, about certain testimony of the sister
Y. Certain evidence taken before the grand jury was offered in evidence, for the purpose, doubtless, of contradict-
The foregoing discussion disposes of all questions in the case. We reach the conclusion that the judgment of the district court ought to be
AFFIRMED.