New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-04-05

Dazzle 3. syivsster ca,.e3-IIAd biAs or ptejG-
dice, aLo Al formed 10 opnion nsd coisctsltous
sorupes but vss not ~osih 800. Diqpaied.
Wm. Bond, cs'led -Rss Do hias, pr odice or cor
tclest,ous sc,upis. end is worth $500 Ssorn.
Bennett S<wel, c.led-H.s no bliss prsyu;ice or
nsoieo,icos ,crupes bnt is ~o.th less thar nohip
Mr.. S.sI ton wsatsd to know whether .ne ID street
Attorney challenged or th1 sroutd
The Jucgs-Tue act OF - expressly states that no
msE sLsl! De qualified juror uEless be owns Yea,
OF personal piop-.ty worth $500. Couns-l nigh.
waive Object %. however.
Mr.. S,aIton ~artef IN know whether the District
Apo,bey cbslepeed on tbs; ground
TIE Jud, the question IS q cha!enge in itse,i.
Mr Stanton vished i; understood.
Warren Low cslec--Hss 20 oas prejudice
scitLuOos rci6piss. Challenged peremptoily.
Alisop WHIT, ca1ed-Iisd formed ga opinion from
r1mor and could net form "a impartial verdict. Dis
qualified.
George f.. Kirk esl.sd Has formed sn opinion from
,uuor sro from the relation tina, he stood to tse
prisoner q married mar lie should be afraid to sit
as Juror. Dsqusi6ec.
JAMES FullaoVe catled-Hsi formed aud expressed
an Op niop ih1ks he could not render far YER
eic,. Disqualified.
Vim Wothiuston .pd Richard L. Sims were dis
qualified ior the Cause.
Tbs exhausted the panel sId the Judge ordered the
Ms,sbal 70 SUMMON seyenty-fye taIssmen for to-
morrow.
Tie whole number OF jurors VINO answered TO their
names was thirty Of these four were challenged per-
snptoIily. four disqualified on accoaIt of lack Of
propery sevent ct ssGe IOT cause and ye sworn
a. folOws:
|. Rsyin Arno'd twssbi' eton Cou,ty, merchant.
9. james Dsyir Washington County, farmer.
g. John T. Neale. Wss aipeton CITY, merchant.
L. Wu- Nj. S. Hopl ias, Wa apg,oa City, furnishing
store.
). VIM. Bond, Washington City shoe manufac.
tuler.
TIE Jurors thus swon allo we'd TO separate, bat
were duly cautioned by the Ju-ge.
MI Stanton called the sstsr Of the Court to the
fact that the prisoner wss placed in the box where
his counsel had no ready access 10 him. He asked
the Court to order the box to be placed in such po
s,on tn 1t Mr. Srckes could Golfer with him. In point
Of fact he may as well remain in jail during the trial
of biz cause, as he where he Ii now plscet.
Tie Judge could net consent to have the prisoners
box placed beside he lawyers. 1t was tie ruls ID
keep it where i. pls'sd. II nigh: hoFevsr, he
removed to the railing directly back Of the bar, and
the Marshal would bs directed 10 keep the wsy open
Mr.. M.guder submitted tina. il was not ash ing too
UGH to have the prisoner routed with the Jurors
ard bis accuscrs. TIE accused might cOudut his
own defense AID certainly in such case would not be
forced to occupy such out Of the way place. They
would lot AK anything for hin on the ground Of bis
pub &c position the ground OF bis profession but
merely what they would ask for the humbsit Aneri'
can citizen. In the various States whence the
coprsel come, the prisoner is always permitted to
occupy seat be side his lawyers He ssked that such
facilities should be extended 10 THE case.
The Judge asked whether council had ever known
msn to be tired for murder who not placed IN tle
deck. Mr. Mssruder admitted t1st the prisoner might
fIst be placed il the dock, hat the practice in Virginia
Alabama, New-York AMI other States, was tha. the
prisoner should cit beside hs counsel and have need
be, facilities for writing.
The Judge bad never seen man tried for murder
who was not psced in tie dock, and had never read
Of such certainly not in England be Wa no.
disposed 10 make any distinction in this case.
Mr. Stanton disc aimed desire 20 have any distnc-
ton made they would be satisfied with The arrange
nent suggested by the Judge
Instructors 10 that effect we're given TO the Marshal
and the Court at | o'clock adjourned.