The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-11-01
SECOND DAYS PROCEEDINGS.
PROCURING 4 JURI.
A TALES OF 100 MEN ORDERED.

The court was opened at halfpast ten
o'clock.
In reply to an inquiry from Judge Chris
tian, the Sheriff stated that the depu-
ties had returned but twenty-siX Of the
fifty men ordered to be summoned for the
venire.
The counsel for the accused announced
their Willingness to have the names return
ed called, although the panel was not yet
filled but in the mean time twenty -four
more names were returned, and the Court
ordered the whole venire to be called.
Garland Hanes, Jr., one of the original
panel, came in, and the rule against him
was discharged. The usual interrogations
were then propounded, and it appearing
that he had fixed opinion about the case
under consideration, he was directed to
stand aside.
Mr.. John Stewart had formed fixed
and decided opinion about the matter, and
feared that he could not render the priso-
ner fair and impartial trial. Mr.. John
+. Wrenn had objections to capital punish
ment, in addition to the opinion which he
had formed. Mcssrs. Stewart and Wrenn
were rejected.
Mr. James r. Crenshaw was next called.
He had been a practicing lawyer before
the war, but the Court decided that this
fact did not exempt him from service.
Answering the usual questions satisfacto-
rily, he was accepted as juror.
Messrs. S. Schwartz and NJ. A. Tyndall
had made up and expressed opinions which
they believed they could not discard, and
were accordingly rejected.
Mr.. John n. Parker was not free
holder. Messrs. William Wayne, John
Sledd, William X. Sedd, Thomas Brough-
ton, L. S. Ervine, had formed decided
opinions, and were therefore directed to
stand aside.
Mr.. Joseph Rcnnie had not expressed
any opinion, and had not formed decided
one. He had no prejudice in the case,
had not converscd with any Of the wit
ncsses, and had no scruples about ver-
diet Of capital punishment. He was ac-
cepted without objection.
MIR. Richard H. Barnes had heard nearly
all the evidence adduced at the examining
court, and had formed decided opinion
upon the merits of the case. He was re-
iectcd. Mr.. Martin Loughlane was re-
iectcd upon the same grounds.
Mr.. Stephen Flood had read the DiSpGtch
reports and formed decided opinion,
which he thought could not be easily re-
moved. j. Ii. Allen, for the same reasons,
did not think he could give the prisoner
an impartial trial. Both these gentlemen
were directed to stand aside.
Mr.. Thomas Hiltzhimer had read part OF
the evidence, but not enough to establish
an opinion in his mind. He was accepted
without objection.
Walter S. Edmonds was not q freeholder
Richard Moore had formed an opinion
which he could not easily discard. Oscar
G. Cosby, Joseph G. Mettert, Edwin c.
Pleasants, and James Hardin had all made
up fixed opinions from newspaper reports
and were rejected.
Charles Gcidt had not read or heard the
evidence, and had no prejudice against the
prisoner, but feared he could not give him
fair trial. He gave no reason why he
could not be an impartial juror except
that be had never been on jury. lie
was rejected. =,
Edward Vogler had formed decided
opinion about the guilt of the prisoner
and was therefore rejected.
Ii. Brill was entirely unprejudlced, but
as he did not know what capital punish
ment was, and seemed rather dull of un-
derstanding, was directed to stand aside
3. Schaff was ruled out for the same
reasons. Mr.. S. Sutherland was not
| freeholder.
Conrad Fietig could not speak English
and showed that he did not understand
the questions of the Judge.
Mr.. Eugene Green, answering the qucs'
tions of court and counsel in satisfactory
manner, was accepted.
George w. Gatcwood, one OF the orlgl
nal panel, next appeared, and giving salts
factory excuse for non attendance on wed
nesday. the rule against him was dis
charged. He lived some distance. from
the scene of the murder, had read only
a norton of the evidence, but had express
ed an opnion. He thought he could en-
tirely exclude any opinion now upon III
mind and proceed to the trial without any
bias whatever. -,
The prisoners counsel objecting to Ms
acceptance as d Juror, the Court oheo'o'
him to stand aside for the present.
The rule against Joseph Gardner wa wa
discharged, and after expressing us vn
tire ignorance of the case, and his peie
that he could give the prisoner lar lriai
he was accepted as juror.
Henry P. Taylor had read q good par
nc the evidence, and had formed an opln
ion but felt confident that he could dis
card it and give the prisoner trlal WIN y,
out any prejudice, judging the cause l. o.
the testimony and according to the ia'
as expounded. He was sure that ne eoul ~
weigh the evidence impartially, aithous
he Was " at present decidedly preJueice' e
against the prisoner. The Judge Fetuse'
to accept him. = c,ort
Messrs. Charles Bruce, Jesse r Clath
1aLa 1N HlnrL Richard Hudson, OQalle