Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1863-09-29
Trial of GuerrilIas at lit. vernon.

Trial OF Guerrillas at HIT. Vernon.
At the term of the Posey Circuit Court
just closed, u case of considerable impor
tanee was disposed of We allude to The
case Of the State of Indiana against Pau
J. Marrs, William A Quinn, and six 9th
er Rebel soldiers, who were indicted fol-
larceny and kidnapping.
On the Sth of November last, small
band of rebels, consisting of some TWEEN
ty-fve or thirty rebel officers and sol
diers crossed the Ohio river at
West Franklin in Posey county, in night
time, took three or four horses, some arms
J and clothing belonging to the private citi-
zens, and arrested and carried with them
! into Kentucky DR. VIM K. Ham, pri-
vate citizen of Posey county. For this
they were indicted, as before stated.
The defendants, under the statute laws of
this State, had right to be tried sepa-
rately, although they were indicted joint
ly in several different indictments. They
demanded separate trials, and William
A. Quinn was first put on trial on an in
dictment for kidnapping, to which he
pleaded not guilty The State proved
that the defendant and some twenty-five
others on the 9th of November last cross
ed the Ohio river in wood boat, a5out4
o'clock in the morning, entered West
| Franklin in Posay county, arrested Dr.
VIM. Ham, private citizen of that place,
remained till shortly after sunrise of the
same morning, and then re-crossed the
river in the same boat, taking with them,
| (forcibly and against his viii, the said
Ham, whom they conveyed to Provi-
dence, Kentucky, some fifty miles from
the river, where he was released on the
10th day of November.
Dr. Ham, when released, was furnish
ed with parole, but was not required to
sign or swear to it. The defendants, in
these indictments, and several others of
their party, were, on the 11th day of No
vember, captured in Kentucky by our
forces, under command of Col. Foster
The defendants were turned over by Col. |
Foster to the civil authorities of Posey
county, and have for the last ten months
quence of the insuficiency of the Jail at
Mt Vernon. Itappeared in the evidence
introduced by the State that the party
were not in the uniform of soldiers, but |
dressed as citizens, with the exception
that three or four of the men had feath- |
ers in their hats 1t also appeared that
the party was under the leadership of
Colonel Hall, confederate Colonel, by
whose order the raid was made, and Dr.
Ham was arrested and carried off. The
reason given at the time by Hall for
taking Ham was that Col. Foster had
captured the Surgeon of Col. Halls regi-
ment, and that he wanted Ham to ex-
change for him.
On the trial, the defendant Quinn
proved that he, with the others compos-
ing the party, were Confederate soldiers;
that they belonged to Halls regiment,
and had been previously mustered into
the Confederate service, and that in cap
turing and carrying Ham to the State of
Kentucky they had acted under the CON-
mands of Colonel Hall Also, that one
Lieutenant and several of the men en-
gagged in the same raid, who were cap
tured with the defendants, had been
treated as prisoners of war, and ex-
changed by the military authorities of
the United States
The defence relied on by Quinn, and
ably, ingeniously and eloquently pre-
sented by his attorneys, Messrs. Pitcher,
Blythe and Spencer was, that the act for
which he was indicted was an act of war,
committed as soldier, in obedience to
the commands of his superior officer, in
the prosecution of war, in which the
Government, in whose service he acted,
was recognized by the United States as
a belligerent, and that, therefore, the act
was by the laws of war, justifable, and
he was entitled TO be treated as pris-
oner of war and not as a felon. The
, prosecution was conducted by Chas E.
, Marsh, Esq, Prosecuting Attorney, as
sisted by Col Baker, Acting Assistant
Provost Marshal General for the State
The prosecution insisted that the ac
for which the defendants were indicted
was not legitimate act of war: First
because the State of Indiana was not tn,
theatre OF war; Second, because the vii
lage of West Franklin contained n,
, forces of the United States to be assail
ed; Third, because of the smallness @
the assailing party; the fact that the
ho came clandestinely in the night time an
in the garb of citizens; and Lastly, tha
y the act itself, that of taking and carry
an ing away non-combatant private cit
zen was in violation of the laws of wal
That as the defendant relied on th
at the Laws of War for his protection h
must, to secure that protection, sho
= that his case came within those laws
= and that the act for which he was indie
~ ed was authorized by the code which |
er invoked for his protection. In both
which respects it was insisted that Il
defense had failed. The court e Ho
- VIM. F. Parrott, presiding, } instructe
the jury that the law of the case wi
, substantially as eontended for BY Il