The northern tribune. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1847-1855, 1848-03-15

AUGUSTA, March IA, 1913.
Pursuant to adjournment, the trial of VAL
orus p. Coolidge. for the murder of Edward
Mathews at Waterville in September last, came
on before the Supreme Judicial Court at Au-
gusta this day.
Present Chief Justice Whitman, Judges
Shepley and Wells
Counsel for the Government, Hon. Samuel
II. Blake, of Bangor, Attorney General, and
Lot NJ. Morrell, Esq, of Augusta.
Counsel for the prisoner, Hon Geo. Evans,
of Gardiner, and Edwin Noyes, Esq, of Wa
terville.
At quarter past 10 o'clock, the Court as
sembled at the Congregational Westinghouse,
which had been previously prepared for the
purpose of the trial. by the erection of suta
BILE platforms for the Court, counsel and wit
nesses. When the doors were opened there
was tremendous rush Of spectators and the
large house was speedily filed. The galleries
were mostly occupied by ladies, Of whom a
large number were in attendance.
The Jurors We're placed in the tier of pews
West of the broad aisle, and the opposite tier
was reserved for members of the Bar and Ply
sicians. The wall pews were occupied by
spectators generally.
The prisoner was brought in soon after the
opening of the Court. and placed in box in
in the roadaisle, near the witnesses stand.
He looked pale, but calm and collected; youth
full in appearance, but with a countenance de-
noting energy and decision of character.
The names of the Jurors summoned, 100
in number, were called 10y the Clerk, and near
ly all answered. The Clerk then proceeded
to call them for the purpose of impannelling
the Jury to try the Prisoner.
Joseph b. Allen was called, and sworn to
make true answer. Mr.. Evans asked if he
had formed or expressed an opinion, to which
he replied in the negative. MIR. Blake inquir-
ed if he had any conscientious scruples as to
finding person guilty when the punishment
is capital He answered in the negative, and
was sworn on the Jury.
Theodore G. Allen was called, and the same
questions were put to him by the counsel for
the prisoner, and the same answer given. Mr..
Noyes further inquired whether he had read
the published statements of the testimony in
the case, or conversed on the subject, and
whether what he had read or heard had
produced any impression on his mind. The
Chief Justice expressed some doubt as to the
propriety uf these questions, after the answers
which the Juror had already made. Mr.. Noyes
urged that the Juror is to be indifferent, or to
be set aside. He cited l Denio's n. Y. Re-
ports, 2Sl, People q. Bodine, in support of his
position. The Court decided that the ques-
tons could not be put. Mr.. Noyes inquired
if the ground of the decision was merely that
the witness had already been asked whether
he had any bias. Mr.. N. proceeded to cite
decision in Massachusetts, where the statute
is the same as here. He contended that if
man has formed hypothetical opinion on the
case, that fact would affect his impartiality as
Juror. The Court said the prisoner could
show by other evidence many facts affecting
the impartiality of the Juror. The point made
by Mr.. Noyes was further argued by Mr.. Ev-
ans but was overruled by the Court.
Mr.. Allen was charged peremptorily by the
prisoners counsel.
Mr. Morrill,, for the Government commended
that it is too late to challenge after question
ing the Juror, and cited Massachusetts, author
tiles Mr.. Evans argued that the statutes of
Massachusetts is different from ours, and that
the practice in this state is uniformly contra
nv to the Massachusetts, decisions. The point
was further argued on both sides. The Court
overrued the point submitted by Morrill,.
Otis Andrews was called and admitted hav-
ing formed an opinion before he was drawn as
Juror. He was set aside.
Mr.. Morrell and Mr.. Attorney General con-
tended that the further inquiry should be put
to the witness, whether his opinion, formed