43 P. 63 | Idaho | 1895
The defendant was indicted, jointly with ■one J. W. Hammon, for the crime of arson, in the burning of certain buildings, and other property, belonging to said Hammon. On arraignment, separate trials were given the defendants. Hammon was tried and acquitted. On the trial of Mason, the following writing, which the evidence clearly shows was extorted from him by one McCarty, a detective in the employ •of the Continental Insurance Company (which institution had a policy of insurance on the property burned), was offered in evidence, and received by the court, in words and figures as fol
That the so-called confession was prepared in advance by the armed emissary of the insurance company is evidenced by the following testimony of Walter Patrie, a witness for the prosecution : “I am slightly acquainted with Charles Mason. I believe I was present in the sheriffs office at the time he is said to have made a statement to Thomas McCarty. I was requested by Mr. Green to come down to the jail and write out an affidavit that Mason was going to make. I didn’t understand at the time it was a confession. I took the machine down as Mr. Green requested, and wrote down the questions and answers to the questions as they were given to me. Mr. McCarty gave the questions, and Mr. McCarty and Mason gave the answers. Mason gave the answers first. Q. I ask you if the statement had not been written out, and if the questions were not read from the statement by McCarty, and the answers made by him, and if Mason was not then asked if the answers were not correct. A. To the best of my recollection that is correct.” This is the only evidence in the record which pretends in the slightest degree to connect the defendant with the arson, and it is palpable, from the record, that the defendant is an under-witted boy, and that this so-called confession was extorted from him by an armed bully, sometimes denominated a “detective,” in the employ of the insurance companjr. We have -searched the record in vain to find anything therein directly or indirectly, or by inference, connecting this defendant with the alleged crime. The manuscript is voluminous, containing a great deal of evidence in regard to the apparent cause of the fire; and counsel, in their zeal, seem to overlook the fact that all this evidence has no pertinency in connecting this defendant with the alleged crime. It is, of course, to the interest of the insurance company that this, defendant, or some other, should be convicted, and in that be