The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-11-13
ton to n has opinion way other; does not
know Juoge stuart.
challenge overruied, and hr. Conckiin challenged pc

know Juoge stuart
challenge orerruied, and Mr. Conckiin challenged pc
remptoriy.
Mr. Cutting insisted that tue defence having already
MADE nye reremptory challenges they mad exhaustei
in January, l4 1t had beca dc sided by the supreme
Court that ~ any case wseie The punishment might ex
tend to ten years i'm -Unment the defendant
titled to twenty peromptory challenges But 10 the
month the Legislature, being applied to. stepped IN aud
corrected this of the revised statutes
the Of lS47 declared that II the charge against
the prisoner such that in OF conviction hs would
be liable imprisonment ia the State prison for ten
years over, should bs restricted five perenntory
challenges The he referred having been de
People "a Dsuio) He reno the statute of Is7 bearing
the subject and submitted that in tins the det-nc
was only entitled to i've Peremptory challenges
Mr. Brady submitted that that act to increase
not TO diminish the number OF peremptnry challenges
Judge Roosevelt seemed to coincide With Mr. Brady in
that view and asked M Cutting how he could get
the third section of the act which provided that nothing
therein should be deemed 10 interfere with the rights
| peiemptory challenge heretofore existing.
The point was argued AT some length, and the court
decided that the defendant was entitled to twenty
| emptory challenges.
vision dealer knows Judge Stuart for three years
does not think lie read account Of this transaction
the newspapers never heard II discussed and has
| opinion about il other.
Challenge oyerruied, and Mr.. Berry challenged peremp
| torily
| George Burng challenged for principal csuse--ge-
sides in Third street read OF the trans .con
in the newspapers, but formed opinion at the time;
supposed the charge 10 be true aud Is stu OF that be-
lief formed opinion and had Impression the
guilt innocence of Judge ,r it would requee
evidence to his belief to the truth OF the
charge; read of it only has not been present whsn
| the subject was discussed
TO Mr. Cutng-Read merely in the paper TINT the
charge made against Judge Stuart; does rscol
lect reading statement of facts, does ne know
what they are has formed no opinion a. the quit or
innocence Of the accused, and find verdict just
1 the evidence may be.
10 Mr. Whing-Does not recollect reading the card Of
/ the District Attorney.
To the Court believed thu truth Of the statement
that Judge Stuart charged.
/ To NJ tinH aafuf ufap,.n that .i aJa
impression whatever my mind as 10 the guilt nno
| cence of the accused
Edward W. Bsler, challenged for principal cause-
Resides in Grand street has not formed expressed
opinion N regard to the guilt or nnocen OF the acus
ed read of the indictment in the paper dill not read the
card of the District Attorney; has no opinion about 1t
way other; has never been where the subject
| discussed
Challenge overrued, and Mr.. Baler challenged pc
John davenport, challenged for principal cause
| Thinks he read account OF the transaction the
newspapers Termed opinion to the guilt limo
cence Of the Judge; hah no opinion or Impression
| way other.
Challenge overruled and Mr.. Davenport challenged
Garret W. Ryckman Jr., challenged for principal
Resides in West Washington place read nothing
further than that Judge Stuart indicted formed
opinion to his guilt or nnocence has not been present
| where 'he subject was discussed.
| Challenge overrued, and Mr. Ryciman sworn as
| juror.
John Erdnan challenged for principal cause does not
know Judge stuart has read part Of the account bu did
not pay much attention to it, heard the subject
discussed and never formed an opinion about it way
| or other,
Challenge ruled aud Mr.. krdman challenged per-
William Hubbard challenged for principal cause read
statement Of the case in the pers; should saw
that 1t had made no impression on him and that he haa
opinion to the guilt or innocence OF Judge Stuart
Challenge ovcrruled and Mr. Hubbard challenged per-
| emptorily
Lumsn B. Wing challenged for principal cause-Resics
in Monroe street. has not formed or expressed opin
ion 70 the guilt or il nocence Of tha accused has no
| read any accounts OF the Transaction.
rily
George 6. Taylor challenged for principal caue-Has
not formed or expressed any opinion in this
Challenge Withdrawn, aud Mr. Taylor juror,
John = lockwood challenged for principal e-Read
an the indictment being found against judge
stuart does reeoect reading the card IL District
Attorney in this case formed an opiuop as To the v
or innocence OF the accused which perhaps might TAX.
some evidence TO remove; that opinion still remains
To Mr.. Cuting-Head nothing and know nothing OF the
acis in the case; has not made up opinion ia e
fact does not know bat that he could give fair and
| impartial verdict on the evidence in the
To Mr. WhittnT-Fhe persons whom he heard discuss
ing the question about Mr.. Stuart receiving bribe did
not express an opinion as to his guilt or innocence.
TO Mr. Cuting.The fact of an indictment having been
found leaves prejudice my mind there IL nothing
else to prejudice my mind would find verdict according
| to the evidence.
To the CourtIas settled or distinct opinion a. 70
the guit innocence Of the accused any further than
that an indictment was found against him.
Challenge overruled, and ju-or challenged for favor.
Counsel argued the matter before the triers and the
trers found the challenge true.
VIM b. Robinson challenged for principal cause
never read or heard any account Of this transaction
knows the Judge BY sight bui Is not personally acquint
ed with him.
Chalenge oyerruIsd, and Mr. Robinson challenged pe-
remptoiily
Vim. b. Rogers challenged for principal cause-aead
count Of this transaction; cannot say that he
formei any opinion entertained any impression a.
the guilt innocence Of the accused that he
| ever heard the subject discussed.
Challenge oyerruled and Mr.. Rogers challenged per
emptorily.
heard read Of this before does not know Judge
Stuart al all; ha, opinion about it; night have
impression that Grand Jury would not find bill Of in
| oic'meni against him without
| Challenge overrued and Mr. King challenged peremp
| tory.
Isasc Koch, challenged for principal cause-Hsd heard
the talked about good DEAL did not hear pee opc
express opinions about IT. did not express any himself
does not think about the matter whether Judge Stuart
eyed part of what thew .ai ba 50 much doubt aboa
him that he thought there would not b. indie ment
against the gentleman unless there something against
| him.
Juror allowed 70 stand aside.
William Glover, challenged for principal cause--Had
seen In the papers that indictment hal been found
against Judge stuart did card the District
Attorney must have heard the matter talked about
or less has not formed opinion about it, has any
impression
Challenge overruled and the juror challenged for favor
Has not served Grand Jury; has be ef that If
Grand jury finds bill Of indictment they must have had
evidence enough before them
Mr. BRADY called upon the Court instruct the triers
that such belief on the mind Of petit. juror dsquaber
him from serving.
| To MIR. Cutting-The verdict which would render
would not he Influenced by the fact Of the ndctme at
being iound but would render il solely the evidence
| and law,
Counsel aguct the point before the Court and trier
Judge Roosevelt declined to charge specifically the point
| asked by Mr.. Brady and exception was taken.
The riers found the challenge true. and the Juror
| was challenged peremptorily.
Judge Roosevelt notified counsel that he would req uire
them to present In the morning this class Of aeir exoep
| tions and the evidence.
Mr. Brady stated IL would be impossible for counsel 70
comply with this order; and II agreed that they
| sh0uld do ~ In proper time.
Jacob L. Scxas challenged for principal cause--f,eai
the statement % the indictment OF Justic. Stuart form
ed opinion about IT, recolect particals instance
Of having heard any conversaton the subject the
fact Of Grand Jury having found indetmen, woald
| not have the slightest influence upon his mind.
Challenge Withdrawn, and Mr. seixaS q Juror
| Daniel Cashman challenged for ncipsi cause-Haa
formed or expressed opinion abOIt the Ia
| acquainted with Judge Stuart.
Chalenge oyerruIed, and Mr. Caahman sworn as a