does not bear distinctly on these questions should be ignored, and all his strength and time spent upon the issues. The advocate should take the necessary time to make the point he undertakes, painting the background for the thing he would present, so that it will stand out distinct in all its parts, thus stamping on the jurors mind an im age that will last until the consultation room is reached. It is far better to make a few points clear than many that are left vague. Those feebly painted may be wiped away by what occurs thereafter and before the jury room is reached. Abstractions are unsafe. The tersest statements of the tritest truths will often fail when made to minds that slowly act. Children use blocks to learn the forms of letters and pictures to acquaint themselves with words. Untrained minds can easiest be made to understand by using concrete forms and glowing images. Big pictures in strong lines will much impress, while lines of finer texture delicately traced, soft, artistic tints, may have but slight effect, if any whatever. The essense of the plaintiffs case lies in the wrong to be redressed. This should the lawyer paint in colors glowing as the truth will warrant and give the strongest setting that the facts will bear, All should be free and natural, consistent with credibility but not showing effort or exaggeration. The consequences of this wrong and all its wide effects should have a full portrayal as they bear upon the state, the plaintiff and the law, that these who sit in judgment may freely comprehend what pleads for redress. On the other hand, the burden of defendants case is innocence or excuse. The facts that tend to show him faultless or lay the blame upon the plaintiff or some one else, or prove the injury an accident with none to blame, should all be mustered and set forth in strongest light, that jurors having all in mind may fix the blame and measure the redress. From first to last, all should be so contrived that it will give their untrained minds the fairest chance to comprehend the whole that the master advocate intends that they shall comprehend. NOTEWORTHY CRIMINAL CASES. Competency of Evidence-X-Ray Photographs as Instrumentalities of Evidence. Carlson vs. Benton et al. (66 Neb. 486.) 1. X-Ray Photograph-Foundation for Introduction as Evidence.-To constitute a foundation for the introduction of an x-ray photographs in evidence, it is not essential that it appear that it was taken by a competent person, nor that the condition of the apparatus with which it was taken and the circumstances under which it was taken were such as to insure an accurate picture, where it has been shown by the evidence of competent witness that it truly represents the object it is claimed to represent. 2. Discretion of Trial Judge.-The discretion of the trial judge in the reception of such evidence is not absolute, may not be expresed arbitrarily; and where the evidence as to the accuracy of the photograph leaves no room for a difference of opinion, its exclusion on the grounds that a sufficient foundation has not been laid, is an abuse of discretion. 1 Amer. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 159. State vs. Rodgers, (129 Iowa, 229.) Photographs in Evidence.-Where in authenticating the accuracy photograph depicting the scene of a crime, it is satisfactorily shown that the premises were in the same condition when the photographs were taken as at the time of the commission of the crime, the photographs are admissible, even though the furniture was arranged differently. 10 Amer.& Eng. Ann. Cases,963. 193 Habeas Corpus and Presumption of Guilt. For the purpose of an application to reduce bail after information filed the court must assume that defendant is guilty of the offense charged. 2. Reduction of Bail.-The Criminal Court of Appeals will not grant a reduction of bail on habeas corpus unless it clearly appears that the amount fixed by the trial court is excessive and clearly disproportioned to the offense involved. (Syllabus by the Court.) Original Proceeding in Habeas Corpus. In the matter of the application of E. S. McClellan for a writ of Habeas corpus. Writ denied. Statement of the Case. This is an original proceeding in this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was filed and a writ of habeas corpus was properly issued on said petition the fifth day of October, 1908, and made returnable on the 13th day of the same month, service of said writ being acknowledged and accepted by respondent, R. M. Connell, sheriff of Choctaw County, Oklahoma. The petition alleges that said petitioner is unlawfully imprisoned at Hugo, Choctaw County, by R. M. Connell, sheriff of said county; that petitioner has been charged with illegally selling whiskey; that his bail is fixed at the THE OKLAHOMA LAW JOURNAL excessive and unreasonable amount of one thousand dollars each in four cases; that he has applied to the Hon. W. T. Glenn, County Judge of said County, for writ of habeas corpus that said bail be reduced, and that said application was, by said Judge denied; that he is a poor man and unable to make bond in the excessive amount fixed by the County Court, and that by reason thereof he is denied his constitutional rights. It appears from the return that there is an agreed statement of facts as follows: Agreed Statement of Facts. "It is hereby agreed that the personal attendance of the petitioner herein, E. S. McClellan, before the Criminal Court of Appeals on the hearing on the petition for writ of habeas corpus, is waived; the personal attendance and appearance of the sheriff of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, R. M. Connell, is also waived. It is agreed that the petitioner herein is held by R. M. Connell, sheriff of Choctaw County, Oklahoma, by virtue of commitments issued to him out of the county Court of said county, which commitments are regular on their face, commanding that said sheriff hold the said petitioner in default of bail in the following cases: No. 94. Keeping Bawdyhouse, bond $1,000. No. 182. Unlawfully having in possession intoxicating liquor, bond $500. No. 183. Selling intoxicating liquor, bond $500. No. 206. Selling intoxicating liquor, bond $500. Witness our hands this 10th day of October, 1908. R. M. Connell, Sheriff Choctaw County. F. M. Brook, for Petitioner. Charles West, Att'y Gen. and W. C. Reeves, Assistant Att'y Gen. for Respondent. 195 Opinion of the Court by DOYLE, J.: (After stating the facts as above) The Petitioner E. S. McClellan, asks the court to admit him to bail upon four informations now pending against him in the county court of Choctaw County, wherein he is charged with illegally selling whiskey, on the claim that the bail as fixed by said county court was excessive, and was in contravention of his rights under the "Bill of Rights" of the State of Oklahoma. The return and agreed statement of facts, which is made a part thereof, show that the petitioner is held on eight commitments issued on informations filed in said county court, charging various and divers offenses. It further shows that the amount of bail now fixed by said court where the offense charged is selling intoxicating liquor, is fixed in the amount of $500. in each case. It is evident that the bail so fixed is not excessive, but is very reasonable. The Bill of Rights in this State provides: "Sec. 8. All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offense, where the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption thereof is great." "Sec. 9. Excessive bail shall not be required." Bail is not to be deemed excessive simply because the particular person charged cannot give the bail required, but bail should never be exacted for the purpose of punishing a person charged with crime, for no person is punishable for an offense except on a plea of guilty or upon a conviction by a jury of his peers. Bail is exacted for the purpose of securing the attendance of the defendant at court at all times when his presence may be lawfully required, and his rendering himself, in execution in any judgment that may be pronounced against him. Upon the application to admit to bail after information is filed the court must assume that the defendant is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. In an application to this Court upon habeas corpus for a reduction of bail upon the ground that the amount fixed by the trial court is excessive, it is not sufficient that this Court might originally have deemed a lesser amount sufficient. |