New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-05-18
THE FOSTER TRIAL.
.u,Rp pAY-rwO MORE JURORS OBTAINED
THREE STILL WANTED.


rrisoners friends challenged peremptory by the
prosecution after he had been pronounced competent by
the trers and two or three who evinced desire 10
serve as evidently they could without expressing It,
set aside the challenge interposed by the
defense The crowd not large the previous
days II h useless for any to attempt to get unless
armed with reporters pass, summons as juror or
supbenea witness, for the officers have received
strict orders the subject, which literally obeyed
The Court opened at precisely half past 10, and the
nrst name drawn from the wheel, by MI Vandevoort'
the veteran Clerk of the Court that of Francis L.
johnson, who rejected having formed an opinioh'
- Was also Lafayette W. Scevey.
Tm EIGHTH JuRYMAS OBTAINED.
Robert Usher, IT., then called, and examined Oy
Judge Stuart on the challenge for principal cause;
you tailed and thought Of the subject Of the death Of
these Oaed opinion the guilt or limo
opinion prevail, vl,A you sCri A. Y, n ,.,,.,
Of crime or Whether any somnedi A has 6eD
pr sS %s rs9s impression SSon '0''
NERO; ,i ts. have recollection Of
Without conclusion A Yea, Sir ~ the .vsecti A.
h' ~ yT Ss SS " ts .n S Sec eom%S
O. Neither have yO come 70 any conclusion q tSsp Foster
o FARTHER VOC A. No az ,Ds ,,ric. Of
Eny IN a case where ne punishment sa "e'1' ~
JndS n cardoso held the challenge for principal cause
Judge s stuart then challenged Mr. Usher for favor and
e1sueI .coVsDnce with prisoner his iends'
Hy. ven .ny business with the prisoner or any Of his
Were you acquainted with Mr. Putnam during his @tme'
Had you any brsne~. relations connections with him any
A % related by boSd OF otherwise parties
'e yS1 st VSu stand ehrey free and 81
see either for or against tue prisoner a hnA DC A MI
% In an other rescis A. In respects; think he killed
pat doncht tn h minis r.
O Woad ou sitting jury verdict 10 accordance with
Have you any bias for against prisoner other than have
And Would you deliver npsrs between the people On
sssd side and The prisoner the otberi A. would
Judge stuart-we have no challenge to MAKE ana
are enLrey S1le have no objection 10 the gentleman
MI Usher-I would rather not serve on the jury nave
Judee Cardozo--That is no excuse.
O y judge srynYon lurking feeling hist cannot do
,sce between the people and .h gsoDeri A. No S ,s
cations he had business 10 attend TO- Tue incident
created some RI anu Csd not az P
Jacob Lewis Lueius II. Fairchld, VIM. G. Amerman,
Isaac NJ Brown. Elijah p shedha Fa6ius Harris Fred
erck Albert HooPer 15eHe German 9eiSf 3
schif J. VIM smithicnm Isaac Levy fredeflck NM
eidsmitR. John p BaGSeit and Frederick GoOdridge
had all formed opinions, and were rejected. -,
,wore that had formed opinion as to the guilt or
Innocence Of Foster and had never Ia any SeTs
that he spoken TO Monday at his place OF business
BTaby TS was down there neanne the ouse
he replied that he and was then asked II his name
No; be did not think Wadeyer was friend or relative
negbcr Of Mr. Putnam The t question IH 81 MI ,e s "a
the tries who found the challenge for favor true and
avssons endeavoring to conciate both sides il was
inferred that he very anxious to serve on the jury
the friends Of the deceased and had known them for
years. The trers decided that he competent but he
set aside on peremptoIy challenge nterposed by
Judge Gdryin.
took the papers occasionally, but not every day. The
challenge Tor principal cause was oyeTruled by the
Court and then Mr.. Levy challenged peFemptOrhy
s.emTnd Iichtenstader was sick at the time the
eide occurred and read nothing about the case un the
FRIDAY after the prisoner aTaigned; he had not
formed opinion, but bad an impression that toe
prisoner was guilty OF Oiense he thought it would
require some evidence to remove that impression; ne
would not act ON the impression but on the evidence
O. By the DsreAttorney-Aud would you be governed solely by
sbs evidence A. To certain extent 1 would
Would be governed BY 1t enreHf A. lhs' something
Have YOU an impression your mind prisoner
Gov No sir ani no PeIGSe ER h s rl on N. one side
ana tie prisoner The Others A do ,.,-,,
O OBJ Jnge StGaHe from Whist have read and
heard SPOKEN some reson A. stated hst before have got
And yco would require evidence that In
@ Your inpre on :, as to the oren itself Yes
AS6 prisoners connection with ti think far
~ 81 M E i..oevBav. YOU an in preston in the sense Of
bye s % your guilt innocence the prisoner
q.
o. Yea would leye an impartial verdict
Q. AEitss, soae a. Yes sE 49,. ,o,,.,,.,
the Juror stood wholly Indifferent between the people
and the prisoner both az respects the question OF me
%as a competent Juror
The trors decided that the Juror was competent
Mr. BarilettWc obliged 10 challenge the gentle
man perenptoriy but do 1t without any doubt that
Prince W. Nicholson. Louis Immen, Nathaniel P. Ack-
srman. WIE Pinsen Lncins +: cary Isaac W. mn Ed
e,,f - Norfop Aus HVaTnR, IL
forest and Hiram H. Durkee were successfully et ASIDE
THE NINTH JUROR OBTAINED.
Henry Leo had not read any account OF the case at ALL
and had heard talked about only in Court had formed
was IA .s d f i % ana ss time vas 40 occupied
Of in his family, he objected. consequence Of
ceving the notice 10 juror 10 Its being spoken
of IN MS presence he might have communications
10 the newspapers about railroad conductors, but was
The triers found the juror to be fully competent.
Ex,Judge stuart-Ay associate and myself think so
most fully, and entirely content with the gentleman
Mr. Leo sworn, and took his place as the ninth
bnrOT. - ,,,v ~, n ,,-,.,-1,
bin. John l.. Deen, joseph Han VIM G, Lane, George
Hauft, Goodman Neu9aler Ehn A. s9te Cnares n.
BILL Charles " Link James ayor Julius Ottenheimer
Abraham 8. Gr.bfelder John Aoendrotn John n Brad
iey Hiram Pool. Christopher Cramer, VIM H. Fowler,
and " Parker had formed and expressed opinions
@ Win nh ii. RiSer was the next juror called
q he death Of ME promptly ami ehs'eay have
~ J.,gs s:ssIlaIg; . pretty 'y'' mayo
Jaime NJ Mckinley had read and heard bet little
about the case, and thought he had not formed an
opinion. Judge Cardozo Oyerruled the challenges Ior
principal cause interpOsed by both sides, and MT
Mckinley was then challenged for favor by Judge
Stuart Under this challenge. ne sad the IacIs o lo
case he read them were true ne bad formed very
decided opinion o9g aFgTmsat iSSSSs and
the counsel for the defense and the D Inc Inc
Jurors competency was then elt 10 te tIer' WIN '''
There rse Of lsw that eau be given you upon