The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-10-12
Judge Indicates Probable RuI-
ing Sustaining Motion Upon
TechnicaIities Which Are
Involved.
COURTS ACTION WILL
NOT INTERRUPT CASE.
Another Charge Must Be Pre-
ferred - indictment Was
Without Parallel in Stat
utes of Indiana.

Argumen MT on the motion to quash
the indictment in the case of the State
of Indiana against DR.. ]. NJ. Bulla and
Eva Sullivan was heard in the Wayne
circuit court this morning. Argument
for the defense was advanced by John
F.. Robbins. There is reason to be-
lieve the indictment will be quashed.
Subsequent to action of this kind, the
grand jury. which remains in session,
will prepare another indictment. Ad-
verse action by the court on the pre-
sent indictment will not prevent the
continuance of the case.
Many legal technicalities arose from
the form of the indictment and what
ever ruling Judge Fox makes will be-
come a precedent in Indiana. The
Indiana statutes do not contain any
parallel case and the attorneys In
| their argument have had to depend
upon cases somewhat similar that
have been decided upon by the su.
| preme courts of Massachusetts, Iowa
South Carolina and several other
states. .-..
| The indictment in its first para
graph charges J. M. Bulla, Adolph
| Uhley (since deceased) and Eva Sui
livan with conspiracy to commit an
| abortion. The second paragraph
charges that as the result OF this con
spiracy, the operation was performed
| by Dr. Bulla and the other two GO
conspirators" were parties to the fel
ony.
|. Claim Indictment Faulty.
The counsel for DR.. Bulla, Robin:
and Robbins and w. A. Bond. claim
the indictment is at fault. because o
the duplicity in the two paragraphs
of the indictment. 1t is cited the sec
ond paragraph makes no new aver
ments and it alleges only that as tht
result of the conspiracy between the
three defendants named in the frs
paragraph the criminal operation wa
performed.
The court has expressed the opinion
the indictment may be at fault mas
much as the woman is made part!
to the defense in each paragraph. M
opinion has been rendered upon thu
motion, however, the court desiring t.
consult authorities first. The prose
cutting attorney stated to the court
that If he believes there is a question
as to the form of indictment the stat
would much prefer the indictment b.
quashed rather than the case proceed
1t is not to be inferred from this tha
the action of the court will proven
a new indictment, however.
The Indiana law governing tn
charge of conspiracy is not perfectl
clear to the attorneys and court.
was somewhat of surprise that tn
state should prefer the charge it die
but the prosecutor said he did so Il
the hope of strengthening the case
By the charge as it now stands, Mrs
Sullivan, the states witness in tn
case, becomes also co-defendan
She is held as co-conspirator wit
Bulla and Uhley. But in addition t
the charge of conspiracy, the indie
ment prefers one of abortion an
again the woman is named as part.
Court Indicates Ruling.
Judge Fox holds that If the indie
ment charged either conspiracy or al
ortion alone, it might be held valit
The court holds that ii woman con
mits an abortion on herself, the az
does not become a felony and sh