New-York tribune., 1872-02-14
THE COURTS.
THE STOKES CASE.

A JuRY OBTAINED FOR THE PRELimiNhn' nnn
HAIR SPLITTING ARGUMENT5-lhS INV"
ABLE LINE OF DEFENSE
The Oyer and Terminer Courtroom "ao 20
filled AGAIN Yesterday by crowd OF peoP'c s"'n 80,
Witness Tho proceedings in the case OF Tho feopo w
sokos indicted for the shooting Of Fisk, ana 10 oo9
tho countenapce of the prisoner and thereby hsco'
the effect OF what passed upon his feelings. he o'p
Yesterday the same studied careessness In iopo'o 80
samc acute observation Of each Juror called the sao W
casonal disposition to catch at trfhes as sup)ecVso
as though TO relieve the somberness OF MS postum
throughall the same absolute dependence on MS ovu
sell Five minutes after he appeared Juuse ~ N"u ~
came in. The two triers, WIN. b. Ogden ana ocoiko
Huntington and Chandler Robbins. George w. Nicno,
son. Peter Kemp, John Henry Walker ana ooonon W.
ohaels the third, fourth. 6fth SIXTH ana se'en'h J
were also early In their places. The entire aay wao
sun,ed In obtaining full jury. or the "a persons w."
have been called, all but five have taken TWO on'n
These five took one oath eaoh Every ono OF the IL &c
lected as jurymen has taken three oats Ihe Iorcan
has taken six oaths and the second juryman four.
The proceedings were nearly counterpart OF thoSe on
the day previous, the questions being put " one"
Juror the Same objections made and the same runss
had except that Samuel f. Goodwin passed the prhcip
challenge, having opinion on rather dhcut quc'
ton law, but the challenge to the favor whie no
denied any bias for against the prisoner he ad'eeo
that he had done business for Col Fisk, and had al I'M
presson as to the homicide Mr. McKcon addressed the
trers and John Graham presented new SET Oh fequo''
to charge being in Substance that II any juror snowou
himself to have such impression as 10 the man duos
ton as would make him think tho present plea % 9
technicalty, nterposed for delay he was ho' HUH
Jnstice Cardozo renewed his charge that tho Juror
must thoroughly and entirely inparim peawcen 'no
sse "f He declined to Charge four OF Grahams
requests but charged the NTH which was 10 ttS me- enGC. @
that the question the trers was not what the pro
posed Juror Thought he coud do to clear his mind OF any
prejudice. but what the trers thougt; VIII ' b idr
4,
The trers rejected Mr. Goodwin they also did Morris
osterweiss and William Bush Terwger. John c: iiaSer
was accepted and this exhausted the regular panel %
S S MSksSn ss exr 'ey pe Of would
erned in that somewhat by the construction placed by
his MSpST hs oP 2rfs @ o
Justice Cardozo said merely for the trial OF this
Mr. McKeon-Then we shall not challenge ,..o
500 were then r0a IN S pcx Whose oe
led to discussion of much length between % m,;
Graham and Mr. Garya as to the , form OF the SvSgSs for
high treason, in Ireland, in 1902 and Mr. Graham claim
OF Of Freeman The trers rejected Mr. vreeland Louis
Frank Moses Rothschid. Oscar NJ sandiord& 49, Jae1o
McKeon and Jesse NJ. Carter were also rejected. hr.
Carriers answers gave rise to long discussion in Th,cn
Garvin took part Mr. Gerry claimed that, under the
statute the formation OF petit juries, they had at
The case OF Freeinan which decided they had right
such trial to peremptory challenge was decided
Which he claimed the right Ia 1850 this gnesii: mad
discussed and judges had agreed that int ag Ao OF
pcremptory challenge waoh HSs to n ''
suits T yT & to SnssiS Inclined to tho belief that no pesemp
| tory chaishgss were allowed in trial Of this kind
MI That the third section OF the act Of s kept alive
tenth section Of the old law. That tenth section gave
the same rights in criminal in civil trials At the time
of Freeman case civil challenges but the
revised were IN aaSad s9S g tbe c s&
Isl7 provision became Incorporated into the old act
The two acts must be construed though passed at the
same time, and this had been decided by the supreme
Ex-Judge Garvn replied, First, that this was not
civil action; Second, that it not trial involving the
IL was mere preliminary trial to the constitution OF
| the Grand Jury. The statute quoted by Mr. Graham
quoted in their opinion and they soemnly decided It aid
permit & on n9 IL 2
and how Sc%d it SRRy y gase Of re fet Gd dnsS
| In n civil action. Was this civil aconi
Judge Cardozo held that before the Act OF 1871 the
had no right TO e 20
the View that the act Of ls1 the rule
ea.e IN 9th auf arSoSr eFsha apply 70
matter naaaTd the trial on his Individual opinion an
| would therefore allow the prisoner two perempto'J
With chosen Yesterday the Jury stands as
Ednbn En Y @sS'V sSITSs g.
| John Henry Walker, Solomon Michaels John C. Huser,
Nathan Brown, Henry Van Holland Samuel Goldsmith,
The case will go tomorrow II the counsel settle
the question OF which side has the airmatve-in other
words the opening and closing OF the casewith'ut TOO
| much argument. .
From what been already said IL is probable that
the prisoners counsel will contend that the Grand Jury
which indicted Stokes illegal body because the
list from which drawn not prepared by the
proper ocorshatt 1t was not prepared from the proper
fist in that the list OF petit Jurors from which 1t
drawn presented by unauthorized persons that no
proper proof Of the competency OF the persona on the
| list was taken that the Christian names were not
written in full that the list was not properly certified
and filed and that some OF the persons who served on
| case Will proceed to-day at 1890 q.