The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1859-04-07

WOuQ De necessary the side atullnt WHICH he
conclusion bore to ofereSnb H. ia order 10 have the ju
rol's mind impartial and that this neoeaftt amounted
10 disqualification
Tho Court aasented. -. - = - r. - S..
Mr Niagruder inquired whether the court would not
Io1 theu 10 ask whether this opinion was not mere
hypothetical one,
The Court replied that no fufthet qestons could 30
propounded The Juror HAVING been already decided To B
Incompetent II ! 81 -. -. ifgs r7 n =. h.
MIR stanton hone that your honor win DO good
enough to note an exception 10 this rulingf taa
The Court Certainly. ~ ~. 80 II
T. W. Angus Was questioned and pronounced by the
court disqualified ON the same grounds "a Mr. Green
Mr. Stanton again excepted 10 the ruling ID - .....f
Elijah Edmouston had formed opinIons III placed on
the iury would actuit the man nauQhtef1 90
Z O. III Wiltebergsr had no opinions or bias and was
pronouncod qualified H.4-a y IN
Challenged by the defence. -sr.e 800 o. rsr- H1
A. hammond was questioned aud rejected 90 7.
Theodore Mosher fslt sympathts with the prisoner
The counsel for tho defence wished 10 nanre into the
nature of these sympathIes but were oyerued by the
Court. - 81 -. -. -- -.... ..-..-- -..-l
George f. varneIl and W. H. NARROW, were questioned
and rejected lBt - 600 CO.'S aarr#
j. e. Robinson was pronounced qualified by the court
but was challenged by the defence
j. STRIVING John H. Sommes, B. n. Kinsey, A. For
rest j Pettibone A. Bulley Il a. Ford. r. e. Baden,
i p Dennis T. Williams J. n Mcintosh. and w. Ut.
tormuhle, were successfully rejected ~
w NJ Moote had formed and expressed opinions, but
thought he could give verdict according to the evil
dence Had no scruples against capital pnishment and
was worth $500
He was sworn.
Hugh Teddy r. j. Magrnder, j. L. ycnablo s. PUN.
phrey and j. p Cromwell were rejected
Cohen after being pronounced qualified by the court
was CHALLENGED by the defence
J. i. Barbour j. s. Topham T. c. Wheeler W. H.
Baum, w. II. Upperman, and j. +. b. Purcell were
ected ...H go. ..a 3. o. s-.-1s 1sFrsa "a
Richie had expressed an opinion as 10 what would
be the result of the trial but could not form an opinion
fully until he had heard the evidence Had sympahes
for the prisoner and for any man in his situation.
Mr. Carlisle. Did you say what Would what ought 10
be the result OF this trial ~
The Juror Both .. ...-.. ... -.....
The Court said that IL was a disqualification where
man had said what ought 10 be the result of the trial
IL was human nature for Juror TO endeayor to bring
about result in accordance with what he had pophc-
sled ..a n..ae.... rr..a.af-".frs ~. 81
Mr. Stanton thought that considering the whole
swsr Of the Juror he was qualified. .... ..
The Court decided otherwise vi --f ..-.- - -
Mr. Stanton viii the court be good enough TO note
an exception to this ruling alsoY
The Court Certainly -r-tr a.s- Y. e.. ~.
Stephen Coster, j. r. Mitchell, III. Burns, j. Miller,
r. B. Clark #. Tenny J. p Bartholow, d. b. Clarke,
and j. Hepburn were rejected
VIM Cooper had formed no opinion and had no bias,
no scruples. Was worth $500 .. .E W..
Challenged by the defence .re.ra arr E-r- '-
Alpheus s. Wight had formed opinions from rumor.
Had no bias or preiudces Was not opposed to capital
punishment. ~ g rl..e ar. rr ~. ar- .. w.
The District Attorney Are you worth $500. a<
The Juror do MT know about that "' aa.R
Mr. Stanton here rose and took exception to the Dis
t:ict Attorney asking that question When on q previous
occasion that test had been applied the counsel for the
defence had been taken by surprise He was informed
that the District ATTORNEYS for many years had en-
forced this test Mr. Ould himself during some weeks
of practice as District Attorney in the circuit court had
never demanded this qualification. He then referred to
the laws in Maryland by which the test made to
consist not only In property but freehold quaca-
ton This prisoner was arragned under the laws the
United States There was no law of the United States
reauring a property qualification in a Juror irving
man charged with murder There was no act of Congress
giving an act of assembly of the colony of Maryland
dity in the District of Columbia after lapse of hun
bred years -.. ... ....
Mr.. Ould would not be drawn into any discussion of
the proprety OF the law requiring the property quahca
h,a d ~ h - l. as actuaiIv the law and
b h,;J ti ",,rt oia not o., hshinS tbe law 10 in
INV; IL ~ . o ;t anJ ,s; one TJe ADMITTED that he
hhd not nrn,ionIv ns;sed ON tbis test and bo would
fnLI own that 4 aa because he was then unaware Of
10 1870. ~"a '' ~ .s basa'0 n.nara, hoo ;;,J
an hosorn L;a Tin. Tbe fornsr Distr;ct Attorney Who
co. hhina h;, M Endou !, had frequently anpi;ed n
Ty ITni,a st, tatrt a,n,,ng On. M.rvisnd laws In
NJ nit;t ~ s .pf az m G ~ 70 tbnr ha5
h, ana,ad i:.;;. .t;. WIZ tbsn sbonId
tbo cornaI c tho dofonca obi.ct 70 the an
n.tnnr;z.d ~ h, a law $50
NJ s.anton ye,,;sd with .re,, warmth The District
attornev had aittsd that dur;no lone nacce in the
the existence of this law Where he asked has it been
biddepg WHY has it remained buried for hundred
years only TO be dug out for the trial of Daniel f. Sickles