_corpus delicti_, upon the law, which is clear, that without such
proof there can be no conviction of the crime of murder. If the
testimony of the witness Nels Nelson can be accepted as the admission
of the man Richard Kildene, until the State can prove the _corpus
delicti_, no proof can be brought that it is the admission of the
prisoner at the bar. I say that until such proof can be brought by the
State, no further testimony can convict the prisoner at the bar. If it
please the Court, the authorities are clear that the fact that a
murder has been committed cannot be established by proof of the
admissions, even of the prisoner himself that he has committed the
crime. There must be direct proof of death as by finding and
identification of the body of the one supposed to be murdered. I have
some authorities here which I would like to read to your honor if you
will hear them."

The face of the judge during this statement of the prisoner's counsel
was full of serious interest. He leaned forward with his elbow on the
desk before him, and with his hand held behind his ear, intent to
catch every word. As counsel closed the judge glanced at the clock
hanging on the wall and said:--

"It is about time to close. You may pass up your authorities, and I
will take occasion to examine them before the court opens in the
morning. If counsel on the other side have any authorities, I will be
pleased to have them also."

CHAPTER XXXVII

THE STRANGER'S ARRIVAL

On taking his seat at the opening of court the next morning, the judge
at once announced his decision.

"I have given such thought as I have been able to the question raised
by counsel last evening, and have examined authorities cited by him,
and others, bearing upon the question, and have reached the conclusion
that his motion must be overruled. It is true that a conviction for
murder cannot rest alone upon the extra-judicial admission of the
accused. And in the present case I must remind the court and the jury
that thus far the identity of the prisoner has not yet been
established, as it is not determined whether or not he is the man whom
the witness, Nels Nelson, heard make the admission. It is true there
must be distinct proof, sufficient to satisfy the jury, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that homicide has been committed by some one, before
the admission of the accused that he did the act can be considered.
But I think that fact can be established by circumstantial