20 Wash. 94 | Wash. | 1898
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence on the following information:
“ EL Gr. Kirkpatrick, prosecuting attorney in and for the county of Steveng and state of Washington, comes here into court and in the name and by the authority of the state of Washington, gives the court to understand and be informed that the said defendant, D. M. McCormick is hereby charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder, committed as follows, to-wit:
“ That on the 11th day of February, A. D. 1898, at the county of Stevens and state of Washington, D. M. McCormick, then and there being, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, maliciously, purposely and forcibly assault, beat, cut, stab and wound one William Duncan, with'a deadly weapon, to-wit: A knife which he the said D. M. McCormick, then and there had and held in his hand with intent then and there to kill and murder him the said William Duncan, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Washington.”
A number of questions have been presented upon the appeal, which will not be considered, as they are not likely to arise upon a re-trial, and the cause must be reversed upon the fourth error assigned. • It is based upon the following facts: After the jury had retired to consider the case, the court authorized two letters and a paper to be delivered to certain of the jurors. This matter was presented in a motion for a new trial, whereupon the court made the following statement, which is incorporated in the record:
“ ‘Yesterday during the noon recess and just before court convened, the bailiff, Mr. Aubin, handed me two-letters addressed to two of the jurors then serving upon the jury in this case, and wanted my permission to deliver such letters to the jurors addressed, and also at the same time a newspaper. After examining the letters and seeing that they were both from a considerable distance from Stevens county, and had been in transit for several days, said bailiff was permitted to deliver the letters to the-jurors addressed, and after examining the paper and seeing that it contained nothing relative to this cause, permitted it to be delivered to the juror! ”
The matter was not submitted to the defendant for his permission, and we think it was error for the court to send
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Dunbar, Deavis, Anders and Gordon, JJ., concur.