Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1884-03-13
A SLIP.
The Needed Statute Not Dug Up
Until Too Late.

The Needed statute Not Dug Up
Until Too Late.
The case Of John Robes came mp in the
District Court yesterday. The defendant
arraigned for trial as one OF two men
engaged in the robbery Of Otto Boetzel,
the circumstance Of which villainy are
still fresh in the memory Of our citizens.
II will be remembered, also, that Del
Barbs, the other man so charged, on the
preliminary examination Of John Robes
before Justice Harmon, testified that
Robes was with him throughout the
whole affair; that Robes was. in fact. the
moving spirit and the principal in the rob-
berry all the way through. Officer
Kaye informs us that at no time since
that examination has Del Barba 'gone
back" on a word Of his testimony. Now,
then, the case comes into court. Del
Bsrba's evidence against Robes was point
blank, absolute, conclusive. complete.
There is hardly any doubt that, had this
evidence been allowed to go to the jury,
supplemented by the testimony OF Ia other
witnesses for the prosecution to confirm
0Ci DbA . rtntCaohtrt nc WOuAo hhVp
gone TO the State Prison. Messrs. A. L. Fitz-
gerald and Alexander Wilson, counsel for
Robes, argued that the evidence OF Del
Bsrba was not admissible, because he had
been q felon and never had been p%ardoned.
They produced in court a certificate from
the Secretary of State TO the effect that
Del Barba had served out a term in the
Nevada State Prison, but had not been
pardoned by the Board OF Pardons. which,
under the law they quoted, would render
it illegal to admit the testimony OF this
witness. Whether these gentlemen we're
aware OF the existence OF a statute repeal
ing all former laws on this subject, and
admitting felons to the witness stand, we
are not informed. /. was their profess
sional duty, perhaps, to ignore 1t.
1t is .not known whether the minds Of
anybody about the Courthouse was clear
on this point. Certain ii is, however, that
Robes case was dismissed without a par
ticle Of evidence being admitted against
him. The Judge ordered his discharge.
After the case was over and Robes was set
at large aud he could never be tried for
that alleged crime any more, for he had
then been placed once lin jeopardy
which unit marks the constitutional limit
1T was discovered that under a law Of
1881 repeating oil others on this point, q
felon's testimony is admissible, What is
the of the oversight? This:
We have turned loose upon the
nifty q man who nearly everybody believes
is guilty Of the robbery Of Otto
Boetzel and whom the officers re-
gard In the light Of a felon, and Of
whom they always speak as q suspicious
character. In his house they have found
stolen goods and all that sort Of thing.
Through q slip. an inadvertency. SO to
speak, he escapes and Is free. If it was he
that robbed Otto Boetzel, and he that
might have murdered him but for the
little mans stout resistance. who is there
in Eureka that may not expect some night
in the future to see this John Robes, dis
guised in q sheet, standing at his bedside at
8 o'clock in the morning. prepared for bur-
glsry, and. II necessary, for assassination 7
What are we going to do about 1t? Pat
him on the back, maybe. Gall him "Mr.
Robes" Make q boon companion Of him.
Tell him, perhaps, that he is smart enough
to outwit the lawyers and the Judge.
Whoop him up and encourage him to emu
late his distinguished countryman,
Joaquin. Perhaps, however, he feels that
he il "Chief" already, and that he needs
no incentive in addition TO that OF his
escape from the State Prison yesterday to
make himself o ''holy terror" We shall
gae.