The New York herald., 1870-04-07
Edward J. Graham ard William A. shaw botn had
worry decided 0plniOns and were excused.

TO ar spencsr-ii lis oolnion was bassd on state
ments read IA the newspapers; t1e opinion was
formed on to ocliel tnat those statements were
true lie thought IL w0uid not require any evidence
70 remove ais lnp'cssion. rms Juror hary under.
$1,000 thc questions. lilo dad noi know whether tue
statements ne had real IN the papers were
untrue. he suh had the same opinion aud thought
II lie we're on the jury he would nave Tue same optn-
Ion.
Recorder Ilacke.t held that his mind was some
what couded, anu ne answered yes or 40, according
to the questions oi counsel. lie thought him ncon-
petenL
| Exception by the defence.
sTUsNIs0 QUESTION.
Humphrey =. rho nps0n mad formed an opinion
ana retained II; cut 1t would not require any EVIL
dence 10 remove the Impression. he WISHED to ask
fence snoud prove adultery by MIRA. Mcfarland.
would ne be OBJ gci to awe 4 verdict OF guLtys
The Court said taat Was question which was not
A IfOr TINE COMING
The deience-Tnat Is not all our defence. Our de-
loca goes much Iurlher than that. Those wao think
tnat Is NIL our defence wsll be very much disap-
pointed. We shall prove greater evasion by this
INVADED we s snow sao o nas sna % VII nj
make every iather ire and bafa up.
:, judge Carvin-ra be very sorry OF such result.
I'm lateiejted. tLaiyhteft
Judge Davis-And l., under the circumstances.
saoald acs a. pflyae counsel tRenewed iaughter.)
Peter FiLscaoa anf george A. Kcntali mai al
opialon whlca would require evidence 60 remove.
oSa nn ohIo' nsa sss @sas orr 1ea 3 ,,o
defence withdrew the caaieags. Tho District Attor-
ney clialienAing Ne Was excluded.
AnS.im Jacob atd 38 opinion which tt would re-
quire evtdencs t0 reuiove.
Patrick Der3y Was called, WHOM the court took o
recesS of twenty minutes.
AsrsN RECESS.
Tho court reasseabled at twenty-five minutes past
one O'Clock +. ~. the morning session had dlspoaed
oi eighty -i0ur Oi the panel, whom Nineteen mai
answered 60 Their Names one Only being accepted as
= juryman On the judge taxing ms seat air. Derby
He was challenged for principal canss by tue ia
icuce, Mr.. Graham pntting the Questions. lie had
newspapers aad tiat alone lie han read A. I'm the
HERALD. lie assumed what he read TO be true.
II II should turn out not 70 be true. he had no
0Dinl0n
challenge Withdrawn aud challenged by the prose-
cuti0n.
DISTINCTION AS TO GUILT
TO Judge Davis-Ile had no conscientious scrupe
ABOUT lnd,ns = yerd CT OF guilty where tne punish
Todcfe lce-if ne was sitting on a Jury on case
Of capital punishment he would find in accordance
WITH the evidence. lie leaned on the SIDE Of Mctar.
guilty, buS "a ihis-- C.auyhter.)
The iec0r ler Stand ASIDE
Lerman /. Winter had formed an opinion that
wOid require evidence 10 remove.
George >. harding to LII. Speacer-iiad formed an
opinion
To Judge Davis-i think the opial0n Is OF such q
character thls IL would ldect my decision.
Peter U. AOder 10 Mr.. Ccry-uad formed
Cnallenae withdrawn.
To tne District Attorney--rho opinion was formed
rom the newspapers; 1t was stii entertained and
wOald require some evidence 10 remove II.
Sisisnuaa oa.aiaerleld-My resiaelco fs No. AL
opini0ai eaieytaia u SIN; IL would require some
evidence 10 remove it,
read tue papers, ne read she HERALD, sun and .yets;
II it should .ara out those matters were false 10
would nave no opinion. Challenge wiGbdr2Hu.
Challenged bq the defence pererlporiiy.
J0aa d. Aioli rad formed ana expressed an opinion
about sae case. Caalense wishdraSnadd chaiienSed
oy prosecution. his opinion would require some
6vfaeace to remove IT, Set a5fd3.
GOODWIN THAT DlDS'T WIN.
Ffankiin G00awfh, OF The EfShtecuth ward, nad
formed al OPINION.
Tloaxa ho had no opinion now. Thought he coud
try Lue case lnpar tally.
30 deieuce-dis opiiton was based on the sunpo
sition lhat the newspaper report was true.
CddiieIoo 0gcrrdied.
Challenged by the prosecution 10 the favor.
DID not know the prisoner or any vi his lricnds.
No ole had talked tJ nlm about tue case. Dia aOs
klow Nr. Got arands Drother.
10 Judge Uavis-iI Is not, l think, OF such
character AS would prevent me iro, hear NJ aad
weighing the evidence aud deciding according To 1t
alone.
challenge not sustained,
Challenged oY deieace TO the favor.
10 Mr. Uerry-l nave an opinion according TO what
road III ,0o Eewspapers. Not IAed opinion. IL
wouid take cgideoc: toreaoye At.
Tue Court directed him 10 stand aside.
all. Z. Pierce had both ioIined ana expressed IN
OpluiCn, whicE IL wound reIul.e evidence 10 remove.
rms TENTH JUROR.
Thomas Nils had formed ana expressed an opin-
Ion. bat IL vas nothing iaore than iiopIession
formed RON the DeWsp spaDeIs.
Challenged BY tae District Attorney--He tholght
he woud deoIoe according 90 Lie evidence Hai
not expiessea any decideG opinion on tue matter;
lad lacy takcu with other jurors about it. lie had
40 CONSCIENTIOUS scrupies AGAINST the pena OF,
death. ChAiioDge WlLhdrawn aud juror accepted py
J0ta sides. tie resides Ia tac NnetaenCh ward, ana
is ary 9oous merchant In the EOwery. No was
sworn IA as seven hiinuteS past Two.
William 5. Wugnt challenged by the prosecution.
had forDed an optnion; sucn as would require evi-
dence TO remove.
J.nes q. De.xusp was in the same condition. 10.
seph Frank would require good deal Of evidence
to remove Ills opinion. Charles Meack, OF No. %
Exchange Place, hat formed ais Optuion from the
papeis. tut was Dxed.
Henry Qurlpel, Jr.. mad heard OF the case ana had
'uMs!pgia ssu9Goso .ao!aao psllsnb pssss9sXs
any faci5-.lerey or newspaper statements. His
mind was II. condition where he could Try the
lairiJ. Challenge 10 Tue iayar,
TO Mr.. Spencer---had wife and CHILDREN, and
usually attended, the Methodist church; ne read tue
uERALD and TsaiseS; lie mai no bias in mis- mind,
none OF his intimate acquaintance tina. ne know or
attended Nr. tr0thingndni'S or Mf. Seecner's
church; no had no leslin9 adverse to the PRISONER
In favor or the prosecution; he hat oO.iyersei
aooutLhe matter wilh his brother and possibly vita
some others.
WANTED no Bg A JUROR.
Anton Koepdu, vi the Eleventh ward, had formed
al opinion 10 the quit CT innocence ct the pm
40 Judge Davjs--JIe could hardly call 1t all opn.
ion. IL was 90 slight that ne thought II would re-
quire 10 evidence ~ r5uiove 10.
10 Mr.. GeiiJ-lt woula possibly require something
to remove 10.
JuuS0 DaVt3-I UdFuiy tuIuk " W0ulQ require
any testinioay 10 remove my Impression.
TO mr. Gerry-l hardly think have an cpini0n. !
know 50 little about the matter.
Challenged TO The favor
am not q married man; am q Presbf terian; I
attend the Fourteenth street churcn, 90 not attend
kir. FrOthiAg aala church; Ga a0t READ the fnGe-
yeg.de1l; attended Mr. Beecher's church aoous a
year and hail ago; did noe read ghe pagers
about the Case; heard two conversations about lc
IRON wnat heard think derived AT impgessi0n
nothing mas slnce occurred TO change it; c&nt say
exactly wuat it was.
ABOUT SIxES.N
think it was about sixes--Slx or one and half q
dozen OF the other.
O. FROM whaG Old you derive the fmprcsstonf
Recorder hackett--l don't see what it mas 10 do
with the case.
Ine deiencc-We have n right to inquire Certain
papers nave said tnis man was al ineoria.c and we
are going dare them to prove tnat. They have
saia tnaI he was brutal 10 this woIuan and forced
ner OH tue stage to earn an independent living We
prOpOse " challenge them on tn0t falsehoOu. We
have right 70 Know whether hts opinion was based
on that
Recorder-Weil put your question, to save time If
oil