The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-05-13
John F. Robbins. Counsel for
The Defense. Announces
This Decision When New
Trial Is Refused Negro.
TECHNICAlITY OF LAW
CAUSES ALL TROUBLE.
In at Least Two Instances the
Indictment Is Faulty. Claims
Defense. But Judge HoIds
That 1t Is Not.

1t was announced today by John F.
Robbins. counsel for Sterling Bolin.
the negro convicted Yesterday of as
sault and battery with intent 10 kill
Arch Hindman. of Hagerstown. that
the case will be appealed 10 the SUI
preme court Mr.. Robbins contention
is upon a technicality and not upon
any evidence that was introduced
against Bolin. He claims the affidavit
upon which the negro was convicted.
was not sufficiently specific The
omission of the words and thereby
from the affidavit is regarded by Mr.
Robbins as a serious error. The only
testimony in favor of Bolin was in re-
gard TO his character previous to re-
moval 10 New Castle, whence he came
to Hagerstown the evening he assault
ed Hindman.
Monday Mr.. Robbins moved to
quash the indictment against Bolin
and the motion was overruled. After
the trial a motion to suspend judg-
ment Wis proffered, also. The court
overruled this likewise Yesterday a
motion for new trial was made and
today this was overruled. As grounds
for a new trial Mr.. Robbins held the
verdict was not in accordance with
the evidence. A specific point was
made of the fact Hindmans name as
it appeared in the affidavit was
Arch Hindman." Mr.. Robbins con-
tended the mans name is Archibald
and as such shuold have appeared on
the paper. Mr.. Hindman testified on
the stand he always signed his name
Arch" This morning Judge Fox rul-
ed that although an abbreviation of
the name Archibald was used. the
witness had testified his name is Arch
and as such he is known. The court
cited an instance where an indictment
had been made out against a man un-
der the name Bob" Experts were
summoned and all held that Bob" is
an abbreviation of Robert. the real
name of the man and refused a new
trial on that ground.
The indictment against Bolin reads
- did then and there unlawfully
and feloniously in rude, insolent and
angry manner with an instrument 10
the affiant unknown touch, strike and
cut one Arch Hindman, then and
there unlawfully. feloniously and pur-
posely with premeditated malice. him.
the said Arch Hindman to kill and
murder and being then and there con-
trary TO the form of the statute -"
Mr.. Robbins contends that the in
dictme Mt is faulty insomuch as the
words and thereby" were omitted fol-
lowing: cut one Arch Hindman then
and there" He holds that although
the indictment may state Bolin as
saulted Hindman with the instrument
and with the intention TO iniure him
1t does not state that the injuries were
committed with the instrument Mr..
Robbins says it might be possible for
man 10 intend to kill another and
assault him with a weapon in his hand
but not intend 10 kill him with the
weapon. BOlin admitted making the
attack upon Hiudman but claimed he
did not intend TO injure him so sever
ely.
The point is purely one Of technical
tiles The supreme court OF one state
has ruled the omission of and there.
by in such an instance is an error
and set aside a verdict. There is no
ruling in Indiana covering the point
and 1t is for this reason Mr.. Robbins
desires the matter 10 be brought be-
fore the supreme court. The verdict
Of this court would govern all courts
peal the advice Of other local attor-
neys will be sought by Mr. Robbins.