The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-03-17
DECISION OF THE JUDGES.
Reasons Why jackson and Wallir
Should Go to Kentucky.

Reasons Why jackson and WaIling
Should Go to Kentucky.
The decision in full of the court, as read
by Judge Smith, follows:
I'm these two cases the court is of the
opinion:
the grand jury of Campbell county, Ken
lucky, against Walling and Jackson sub
stantially charges them, and each of them,
with the murder & Oh lear ,,s 6ryan ,t ID snat
son and Alonzo Walling of the crime of muir
der committed as follows. viz: The said
Sso 9 ana haora tbs nnS on o fne This
indictment, in the county aforesaid, did will
fully, feloniously and with malice afore-
thought, kill and murder Pearl Bryan by the
Alonzo Walling, with a knife or other sharp
instrument, cutting the throat OF the said
Pearl Bryan, so that she did then and there
die. the other being then and there present,
aiding and abetting the same, the exact man
ner whereof is unknown to the grand jurors,
and which did the cutting, Scott Jackson or
Alonzo Walling, or which aided and abetted
the same Is unknown to the jurors The
averment is direct that both of the persons
amfn tha ntsnf mere with which and the manner in
which it was done. viz. by one of them
doing the cutting of the throat Of Pearl
Bryan with knife, the other being present
and abetting him. and thereby then and
there causing her death. This standing alone
would have been a clear and formal charge
against D0tn Oh the ueleHudnis vi muruer.
And the fact that the Indictment further
states that the grand jurors were ignorant as
10 which one of the two actually did the
cutting and which one being present, so
aided and abetted the other. does not make
the Indictment bad. unless ii Is made SO by
the laws of the state of Kentucky. and no
proof as TO this appears in the bill of excep-
tions II felony is substantially charged
in an indictment the fact that IL may be
inartificially done or that there Is some tech
nical defect in the form of the indictment
ought not TO avail in a case of this kind.
Such questions are to be heard and passed
upon by the court in which the indictment
was found, or which may be called upon TO
try the case between the commonwealth and
the defendants.
'.Second--The Governor of the State of
Kentucky having i'm his requsition upon the
Governor of Ohio for the surrender of these
defendants for trial upon this indictment,
a COPY of which was attached to said requis-
tion and certified by said Governor. as re-
uuired by the laws of the United States. to
be authentic, and having also attached there
to the evidence upon which he acted viz. an
affidavit OF Ramsey Washington. ESD.
county attorney of Campbell county. Ken
lucky. averring that these defendants We're
fugitives from justice and were In the State
of Ohio. all of which papers We're introduced
as evidence in the trial of this case. and
the Governor of Kentucky in his requistion
having alleged that they were fugitiyes from
Justice, the question Is whether such evil
dence ought 70 have been satisfactory TO the
Governor Of Kentucky. We think not.
THAT matter for him TO decide.
our understanding OF the decisions in this
State Is that on the hearing of the extradi-
tion case by this court or on a habeas corpus
case of this kind the parties might have Of
fered testimony TO show that In fact they
tives therefrom. But this was not DONE and
We are OF the opinion that the evidence SUBJ
mitted to the trial court through the az