The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-20
TIE JERSEY CITY FRAUDS.
Panel-Trying Jurors Who Read the
Eerald-Ten Jurors Obtained


Eerald-Ten Jurors Obtained
The case OF the State OF New Jersey VS.. The Police
Commissioners and Chief OF Police of Jersey City
was resumed yesterday morning In the Court OF
Oyer and 1ermlner at Jersey City. Immediately
after the Court was opened Judge Bede
delivered his decision on the challenge to the
whole array of jurors He said that the challenge
was outside the limits OF any allowed by the COM
mon law that 1t has always Deen the prerogative
OF the Sheriff not only TO summon, but to select
jurors. and that it was never intended by the
jury act on which the challenge hal been
based to Interfere with HIM In his selection.
Among the authorities quoted from was the decision
CT Judge Cardozo the Stokes case. The action Of
the person who selects the jury was conclusive In
the absence OF fraud or inqulsItiOn. 1t may have
been that in selecting the jurors ne did not COM
70 Indictment for infringement OF the statute. But
his action unless fraud be alleged must he taken as
conclusive. The common law challenges were stlll
open to counsel in all their force me Court would
hold, therefore, that the panel Is good and would
Counsel for defence asked for recess for one
hour, oruer that they might consult as to their
future action. They had been impressed with the
idea that the challenge would be sustained.
The Court remarked that they mad no doubt
counsel were entirely prepared, and the Sheriff was
directed TO return panel. Then came the exam-
The nrst called was Edward Alderman. who was
Jonn Litcnold was the next but he was excused.
Charles O'Brien, OF Harrison, was challenged for
relative OF gentleman OF that name connected
with 9 New York paper. and ne replied that ne
tn1ugn Ne was not ne was @ read accounts
Of the case in the NEW YORK HERALD, but they had
produced no Impression on him. lie was chal-
Lawrence Corne was challenged and examined.
but the challenge was Withdrawn, and he was set
Michael Grifiin, another constant reader of the
HERALD, was challenged for favor. Counsel for de-
Judge Bedle-Tae Court refuse the triers on the
ground tnat the challenge IN the case Is the same as
the principal challenge
Griffin was al last set aside.
Daniel R. Van Ripper was challenged for principal
the Court stated that they would allow this chal-
lenge to be mace, but would not make 1t prece-
dent. The Court would try the challenge.
Van Ripper. on his examination, stated that the
OnU opinion ne had about the case was That his as
sessment lor sewerage Was too large. He was set
John Gallagher was challenged. He had ex-
pressed The opinion that 1.-THE way the thing is
Mr. Abbeu-Have you formed any opinion as to
the guilt OF the deIendants2
Jur0r-Certainly have.
MI. Abbett-DO you think they are guilty?
Juror think they are. .u4aughter.)
Judge Bedie-State whether your state Of mind IS
SUCH that II you were sworn upon this jury yO1
would give verdict according TO the evidence
Juror don't think could.
Judge Bedle-Tne Court would say on this cues
tlOn OF challenges that the mere formation OF an
opinion from newspaper reports does nos disqualify
0t ttsell. This opinion must be grounded on malice
expressed or implied. The Court are satisfied that
this juror is IN that frame OF mind which would
CONCLUSION, and he Is, therefore, set aside.
William Madden was challenged, but the chal-
lenge was Withdrawn He took his seat as the
Jonn Bolts was challenged, but was afterwards
Frederick wohlleben was challenged, but the
challenge was Withdrawn,
Henry benson, a slcKly young man, was cha
lenged. He was examined by the Court to the
state OF his health and his ability TO endure the IA
ngue o. jury DUTY Ae was aceepted put was c1a
defendants, and set aside
Thomas Mcbride, who reads the HERALD every
day, was examined verv mlnutely as to tine impress
sOns the reports In that paper left upon his mind.
Mr.. Albeit was proceeding TO interrogate him In a
general way, when the Court interposed and stated
that justice to thewltness counsel should be more
specific. the juror stated inat ne had no bias
against any or the defendants
Judge Bedle-The Court admit the juror as FAR as
the challenge Is concerned.
MI. AbbeLl-Then we desire to challenge FOR favor
and we ask for trers.
The Court overruled the challenge. allowing an
the Court would not appoint riers Tor the present,
but would hear any further testimony counsel for
defence might have to oner in order to determine
whether triers should be appointed.
The juror was challenged peremptorlly by Chief
of Police McWllliams anu set aside.
Carrot Buscn was challenged, but the challenge
was Withdrawn.
sabine Joseph zacharas was challenged and ex-
amined, alter winch the challenge was Withdrawn.
He was proceeding TO take his seat as the eighth
juror when he was challenged by the District Attor-
hey and set aside.
JOHN Connell was challenged, examined and ac-
cepted, but was set aside on the peremptory cnal-
lenge or the Chief OF Police.
Hermann Haas was challenged and afterwards
accepted. District Attorney Garrets0n interpOsed
challenge aud Haas was set aside
James McGarr was next called up. On being eX-
amined under Challenge he SAID he had o converse.
ton with policeman named Thomson, who tried
TO pump" him and eXtort an opinion about the
Police Commissioners IN this case
The policeman who was IN Court was directed to
stand up, and he was questioned By the Court He
said ne was on The ponce and mad not been sus.
pended.
Counsel Tor defence then challenged for favor and
demanded triers, but the court Overrued the chal-
lenge. The Juror was set aside Oh the peremptOry
challenge OF The chief Oh Police.
Chr1sllan KratZ was challenged and examined,
and his replies were very humorous.
Mr. Abbett-What are your feelings about the Pc.
lice Commissioners
Juror-WelL ! ike them well enough, but don't
want TO have anything TO do with them. tLaughter.l
He was set aside
william Wilson was challenged, examined and
accepted.
David O'Leary was placed on the stand. He read
the NEW YORK HERALD, but mad not formed any
opinion. He was set aside on the peremptory chal-
lenge of Thomas A. Cross
Andrew Van BusKlrk was the ninth Juror
accepted and George Vreeland the tenth No
further progress had been made up to adjournment.
Twenty seven jurors In all mad been examined.