The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-02-25
THE GRANT-pOLLARD TRIAL.
SLOW PROGRESS IN GETTING A
JURY.
ANOTHER LARGE TALES ORDERED.

ANOTHER LARGE TALES ORDERED
Another day-the third-has been spent
in the effort to obtain in Richmond 6 Jury
| for the trial Of James Grant. Yesterday
| the names of another tales of $50 men
were called over, and Notwithstanding the
probing questions Of court and counsel
not one competent juror was obtained. The
men summoned, as a class, will compare
favorably with any in the country, but all
had read the newspapers and formed OPT
Mons upon the published reports and the
circumstances attending the tragedy.
The scene presented yesterday in the
courtroom presented no new features wor-
thy Of note. The usual crowd was in at
tendance, but it was composed to great
extent Of unwilling spectators Of the pro-
ceedings-reluctant tdlesmen drawn from
their places Of business or occupations more
congenial than dancing attendance upon
court, witnesses and friends Of the accused.
Edward A. Pollard was still absent on &C.
count of his sudden illness. The prisoner
was attended by his father and younger
| utotuof, ootn VI HAom saS e1ooo aI LID sA-
bow. wy -- -e-s -..s5
At half-past eleven the court was opened,
and the case Of Grant was at once taken up.
It transpired that the sergeants had not
been able to secure the full number of
| talesmen ordered, but the names of as
many as had been summoned were called.
The following successfully answered af-
| frmatiyely to the question Of the court as
to whether they had formed or expressed
opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the
prisoner at the bar, and were excused !:
John G.. King, z. L. Brown, Taylor Davis,
| R. Maynard, s. L. johnson, Thomas Gam
BILE, Thomas Potts, E. F. Raglan, G. Wor-
than, G.. T. Peasants, r. W. Harwood, c..
T. Wortham, L. Powers, J. G. Johnson,
George Watt, T. W. Tignor, R. B. Wood
ward, E. D. Eacho, Oscar Cranz, J. P. Pear
son, John L. Williams, G.. A. Scott, J. Ro-
senbaum, - Crump, J. W. Archer, E. T.
James, Charles Campbell, James L. Maury.
When the name of J. W. Archer WAS
called, Judge Ould remarked to the Court
that if only the questions heretofore asked
were to be propounded there was little
probability Of obtaining jury. He sug-
gested that the Court ask some further
questions, in order that the conscience of the
talesmen might be thoroughly probed. If
the opinion formed or expressed was one
that could be removed by affirmative or
negative evidence, or if the juror thought
himself qualified to give an impartial YER
dict according to the law and the evidence
notwithstanding any previous opinion, then
the defence submitted that there could be
| 4o hin kha
Colonel johnson spoke to the same point,
maintaining that if the opinion formed
was merely hypothetical the talesmen was
q competent juror. The Court of Appeals
of Virginia, in Wormley's case, had estab-
lished this fact, and had even gone further.
The Court decided that it was unneccs-
sary to interrogate the taleSman any fur
ther than had been its practice heretofore.
The interests of the Commonwealth and Of
the defence equally demanded that the
jurors in this case should be entirely with
out bias.
Colonel Johnson then asked Mr.. Archer
the question propounded BY him to MIR.
Lumsden on Tuesday as to whether he
felt competent to act as Q juror in this case
without being influenced by any newspaper
Archer answered, 81 do not"
7. ". boswell, William Willis, Jr., and
NJ. Nelson we're next called.
To MIR. Willis the question asked of Mr..
Archer was propounded. His answer was,
"I think l could" having previously an
swered that he had formed Or expressed an
opinion.
Mr.. Gilmer: Is the opinion which you
have formed or expressed as to the guilt or
innocence of the accused of such q decided
character the one way or the other So TO
require affirmative evidence to effacc your
present Impressions and opinion before you
could enter upon the decision Of the ques-
ton of guilt or innocence?
Mr.. Willis: It is.
Judge Ould After having answered the
question propounded by the Commonwealth, J.,
tell the court whether any opinion you have
formed or expressed will yield to any evil
dence which may be offered for the Com
monHealth or for the defence?
Mr.. Willis: 1t would.
Mr.. Gilmer: Now state to the Court
whether your present impressions and opin-
ions would not accompany you into the jury
box with such an abiding influence as to re-
quire the strongest proof to overcome them
as they now exist.
Mr.. Willis / cannot say that they would
require the strongest proof, but it would
require strong proof.
Mr.. Johnson We submit to the Court
that Mr.. Willis is a competent juror.
The Court then asked if Mr.. Willis con-
sidered the opinion which he had formed
decided and substantial, or merely hypo-
thetical. He replied that he could not see
from his present knowledge that it could
be otherwise than partly hypothetical, but
still it was decided opinion.
Judge Guild obtained leave to ask the fol-
lowing question -" Can you now say that
you can sit in this case as juror and de-
eide the case according to the law and the
evidence? ?"
Mr.. Willis: 81 reiterate the answer
given at first think | can"
| Mr. Willis was then told to stand aside
for the present, not being excused.
The first question of the defence was
then asked Mr.. boswell, who replied that
his opinion was so decided that he was
afraid to trust himself in the jury-box.
He was excused.
James Phillips, j. L. Timberlske, R. W.
Oliver, 4. L. Burfoot, Caleb Jacobs, j. A.
Pizzini Miles Carey, E. A. Parker, A.
Chaplin, A. P. L. Woodward, Thomas }
Starke, W. D. Cooke, NJ. H. Hsbliston,
c. Magruder, G. D. Thackston, ". Z, Tan
ner, j. W. Allison, R. D. james, G. ". Al,
len, ]. Viles, G. NJ. Wallace, j. Asher, ]
Bowers, w. L. Slater, T. Nowlan, 4. \
Lacy, G. W. Beyeridge, n. W. Bowe, Z. 3
Dunsford, n. C. Lipscomb, c. Unkel, r. I
Alvey, william Thalhimer, Julius Sycles
Isaac Hollsnder, r. 0. Gary, Benjamin
Csttrell, W. q. Tatum, W. A. Armistead