The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-20


Friery case the Court passed on the question by a
bare majority He insisted that the law Should be
strictly followed, so that they might have proper
Judge Ingraham held that the provisions of the
act as to the preparation OF the list were merely
directory and therefore the challenge to the array
on the first point was not sustained. The second
point did not go far enough. 1t merely averred that
Jurors The County CLERK was not bound to write
out the ballots with his own hand: Had the chal-
ehge sa.d tney Were placed IN the box By the Com
demurrer was sustained and the challenge over
ruled.
CHALLENGING JURORS.
MT. Markwald was the first man called. Mr.. No
Keen at once said 90 challenge him for principal
Ss Ioe ay e a oea ana an opinion
me Court suppose he will try IL.
Mr. Mckeon-Ihen demand triers.
Mr.. 0arvin--On principal causeS
Mr.. Mckeon argued that he was entitled to trcrs
even on nS challenge to principal canse bat the
Court. An exception was taken.
AS Judge Ingraham knew that the man was op-
posed posed TO capital punishment he was allowed TO
John Buchanan was next called. and was chal.
ienged ON the same ground. He had spoken about
scientlous scruples against capital punishment
His opinion was based on what he had read In the
NEWSPAPERS, and he had talked about the matter
g Go, Gould you find your verdict on tho evidence
Mr.. McKeon-we object to this question on the
ground that 1t cannot be put On challenge to prin-
cipal cause.
Q. Would the opinion you have formed or the I'M
preston you have bias you Ia forming your verdict
Mr.. McKeon renewed his objection.
. a; NO, SIT. lie lad no business relations with
TO Mr.. McKeon-He did not to his knowledge
know any one connected with the Erie Railroad;
he believed that Inurder was committed and that
great wrong was done; he had q feeling that the
OBJECTION TO PRIVATE COUNSEL.
Mr. Beaeh mere raised an objection to one Of Mr.
might as well now present his objection to the
presence OF private counsel: He would first ask
whether they had been authorised to act by the
Attorney-General. He asserted that the whole
case was trusted by the Revised Statutes to the
Of the District Attorney that in case in
rized to act by the Attorney General, he had only
been permitted to act on account OF that authorize
ton.
District Attorney Garvn replied. He said this
was the most extraordinary proposition he had
ever neard He did not know any reason why
defence In any way And II the counsel referred
to- sitting beside the District Attorney should sug
of consideration from the Court, as no doubt he
WILL the District Attorney has the right to reject or
adopt, as he may deem fit. In long and tedious
trial. as this will probably be- it would be impossi-
bic for the District Attorney to conduct the case
without the cid of other counsel. This has been so
RON time fmmemOrial, and this was the first time
ne had ever heard such an objection raised The
duties OF District Attorney are OF such charac-
unless this can be done public justice must fall OF
being efficiently administered In this great city.
should be warrant to authorize the Court to saw
that there could be no objection in his making such
suggestions to The District Attorney as he might
deem proper
Mr. McKeon having procured the report OF the
massachusetts, case, read from 1t the decision Of the
ster was brought in 10y the Attorney General, and
was acting without fee. He argued that this was |
very Inherent tA from the introduction Of private
n fho nio-
trict Attorney had not the ability or with several
assistants, not the power to prepare the case then
hound pertnacity with which they were pursuing |
the prisoner and he would not permit this Spectacle
o. private counsel hired to pursue his client, with
The Court said for the present private counsel |
would be dispensed with. and he would decide the |
The Court then examined the Juror, who said the
on his mind would not require evidence
challenge, and the defence challenged peremptory.
s Albert EIsberg had read about the case but had
Townsend Challenged to the favor, 1 and Edward
Patterson and Mr. Niles were named as trers. Mr.
Townsend then submitted a challenge to the trials,
although he admitted that the right had never been
admitted The Court overruled the challenge.
:, MT. Townsend then examined the juror on the
FISK, Gould or Tweed; he had talked with no one
ABOUT being on the Jury except his own family; his
on lis m 1ne paf Ssye made Wsrs no
such things in the papers that he took
no interest In them; he remembered that Fisk |
was said to have been killed by Stokes; 1t made no
impression on him "a to Stokes guilt innocence;
ne did not remember where the thing was said to |
have occurred but he thought it was on the stairs;
ne uiun remember there was q CorOnerS jury; he |
mad the impression that II Stokes had done this he
was murderer: he did not think he was biased or |
preudlced; ms business ls commercial agency;
he Is connected with the Merchants Cooperative |
bureau Is Prussian, but has been in the country
since 1s4S and continuously since 1864.
TO the District Attorney-I never saw the prisoner
till saw him here
TO Mr.; Niles-I consider killing crime con-
slider II he killed him without provocation he COM
mitted crime have no knowledge US to whether
he had pr0vOcati0n or not.
The trers found the challenge not sustained, but
the defence challenged peremptOriy.
THE FIRST JUROR OBTAINED.
meyer Homoerger was next called His address
While his real address was No. 3S3. Mr.. Townsend
ODected but reference to the original list showed
had talked about the matter. From what he had
read ne mad formed an impression and expressed it
to neighbor.
9. What did you say'
Mr.. Garvin objected, but Mr.. Townsend asserted
that under the new law this must be admitted The
Court excluded the question.
The juror had read the story OF the killing In the
papers and had talked about IL with neigbor: it
was an Impression he had formed, not an opinion;
lie could hardly form an opinion without hearing
both Sides he had not formed any opinion Us to
Stokes guilt or innocence.
10 the District Attorney-1 have no conscientious
scruples against punishment by death. lie was
then challenged to the favor.
10 MI. lOWlsenu-l don't know Tweed nor Gonld
nor any OF the Morse family, nor Mr.. Schemmel; it
was surprising homicide to me; did not read
the account very carefully: don't remember read
ing abont the Coroners inquest; read the sun or
HERALD ana the German papers; have talked In
Court with other jurors about the matter: don't
remember the details given in the papers; remcm
Der the shooting and that is about all i think II
was done with pistol and on the steps ut the
ladies' entrance to the hotel; don't remember
any other statement; had an impression about
the meter undoubtedly; nothing has occurred to
remove u; mad no impression as to Stokes guilt
or innocence; heard that Stokes shot him and
that Colonel Fisk died should want TO hear the
medical testimony to decide whether he killed hin
nave an impression that Stokes shot him, and 1t
would require some evidence to remove 1t.
TO the District Attorney-I could sit on the Jury
without bias; have had no relations or business
with Stokes or with his counsel.
To Mr.. Niles-If stokes counsel should admit that
Stokes shot Colonel Fisk and that Colonel Fisk died
as a result he would be ready without any further
evidence TO find him guilty OF murder; he did not
understood that all Killing was murder; he had no
plas IN MS mind which would prevent his passing
on the question whether the killing was Justified
or not.