The sun., 1873-01-11
THE TRIAL OF MR.. TWEED.
5HT JRT RE1DY TO 90 TO WORK
~ NONDAY MORNING.


it, a-t Challenged Juror Put Out aner
he nd been Accepted.
Thcury for the trial of WIN. ". Tweed
las len completed. tho twelfth juror having
teen s,urcd just previous TO the adjournment
,,strray. The only incident Of special interest
,r uoylty was an application ON the part Of the
,r,sedtion pcremptorily TO challenge n Juror
vtphd been accepted, and who had for two
L.... lin the Jury box. At the same time they
N..fptiy l'srlaincd any reelection upon the
bop,tr Integrity of the Juror, or any imputa-
t,, non Mr.. Tweed or his counsel The usual
ARA, LAWYERS were in their seats, including
Dri, Dudley Field, W. o. Bartlett, John
Grhfu. John T.. Burrill, VIM. Fullerton, willard
Barlltt. Nm Edlesten, and Elihu Root
Terence Cusick, plumber Of "A Park avenue
W. 70" nr4t man called. lie had made up his
u,.ndas far ~ he had heard and read. He would
be- r0erned by tho evidence, but 1t would re-
,uir considerable evidence to remove his i'm
trcsious. Yet II he entered the jury box he
wHil decide on the evidence alone.
Challenged to the favor. lie had signed his
nam tu some paper about politics, but didn't
rcllN know what II was. lie went In TO the
ny,,,ng and signed mis- name. friend asked
q HtO do SO. lie thought II was to some dele
rrbn to an Apollo Hall convention, but
conduit realty tell lie had done some work for
tlf 'choul' some years ag9i but couldn't reinem-
her What ward II was IN. He had read about the
hIH
..c frinrs sustained the Juror, but the defence
challenged purcmptorily.
1uE ELEVENTH JUnOH.
S'mucl G Heine liquors, Of 1869 sixth ave-
o.. Niu q -urt uf an opinuu-NCry slight FORM
4 q, fg,n r.adlng casually the papers aud hearing
..I.. boo his restaurant talk. lie had partly
fr.u't,u tuC matter. a. he had heard little Of IL
Il { lnt lat six months. lie thought II sworn as
. , urur IN, could throw aside every hing now in
. hue mind. iiis opinion was not such as would
A p.iuirV evidence To- remove. He had heard
4 more about Nj Otunprs appointment In court
Il lru ever before. lie had heard Of the Attor-
II nat-GtuUrnl- suit, hut not Of the supervisors
\ ..tt. u, thought he had seen heading about
4 Gsr,r,s testimony, but had not read II. lie
4 il heard Mr. Garveys name associated with
Arera long examination Mr. Graham waived
. DIE challenge. and Mr. lleiue was sworn in as
Il eleventh Juror at ll:55 \. NJ
John ". Tay3tor. milk dealer, Of 20 North
Moore s'Fret aq not h"T th "a ne mao come ,T 70
4 sion about IT, lie had heard the subject talked
sauut. but had not. he thought, talked about 1t
4 himself lie had read So little that he did not
n snow what II was He was not sure whether II
ar cgmplimentTy or otherWise-probahly 1t
Challenged to the favor lie had no conncc-
lion with any political organization tie had
seen articles headed Reform probably. hut
. hr had never read an article on REFORM He had
II Ho,,r talEci ~ -ut rcturri.
lie wls chlllenecd boy Nr. Fullerton percmptur-
ily, Mr Fullerton adding, " " want iaan who
Is Ia favor VI reform
NOT REFORM REPUBLICAN.
George Campbell Clemson. stone utter, Of 438
Wet furty-uiuth street has done no business
for o." city. lie has formed an opinion, but not
q very decided one, and his opinion would have
. No. Influence ON him In the jury box. II the
prosc,dtiun brought no proof, Of course he
would not convict. His opinion lac would lay on
. one side A. soon rs he took his seat
Y Challenged 10 The favor tfe said he was Re
publican. and had taken no part in the Reform
party lie might have expressed himself pretty
II strongly against or IN favor of Mr.. Tweed. In
Argument IN the shop, for the sake of argument
u ne might sometimes have taken the negative or
sometime. the Affirmative. Hc did not remember
II nuW which. The triers found the challenge
Il tue.
Th. exhausted the panel.
II vi feckham said that they had information
| cite Ncrhaland one written. which Justified them
II o. asNir- that they be permitted TO challenge
Il AW itrcuNturily.
L Nr Grtuam began to object to this that il was
IL entirely improper 10 place spies on the jury after
4 i' hai been impanelled; bui Mr.. Peckham said
|. i Ws not matter arising after the swearing VI
II tc Juror. but something happening before, and
itai their Information had been voluntarily
L communicated to them by persons who had act
L tI under sense of duty.
Mr.. Fullerton objected that the prosecution
hAd had an opportunity 10 inquire into the
III character ut each juror before he was placed on
Il g. stand, tud should not now press this, A. Mr.
Il IM,ei "1r Va no ~ay implicated.
III Pending the decision the clerk proceeded ia
II call iuc ur" panel. more than tWeuty-fuur OF
whom were present.
/ Nr. H,rrtErT DECLINING TO co on.
AZ tay CLOSE Of the calling Mr.. W. O. Bartlett
@ g frmoq q g. yoqr or, Honor s5. RIA should d "a NE e
t"AhAN Win reference 20 of tho Jurors alfrnf,
h"h'4d appryltnd, Il your Honor please. thai
n'rron of -ciu has not been publicly stated. Now
satrd Hn public trial Ihe defence ON this occasion
~ do.rr n.t whatever the prosecution may have tC
ouTI 6a '@ 6g nf qnsTfg III IA hs tn gn @ & of opsI
a5. M n' m RU19, ,i ,,S We Wsa TO have stated here
"r,n ,..l,,a t lae sSnHHs o. those engaged II
|. . 2 dFnf ~
| ,a'r or O." ihe counsel engaged Ia the defence
,.s.te nat uel shall state here and nov that wn.c
hJ ore bound IN conscience 70 state that the reason
,..rmuas does not reject n any manner upou any Of
a- '2r i t9r aet.n.' Or nnon me dsfeldnt h,m
81 A ,nd m i2r !l! !es @etcnd.nt ths' notng Gas 6ee
Del Whcn !. noi ~ par NJ the PRAYER winch ciHdho0
.trt', Owe Object TO 10 on for one moment NOR
Nr, Gr,ham-We Object to any attack being mad
lere by .he tongue There Is sdy OF proceeding IN
'uirt u lust which We insist upon. II there ar
d, W. aVs Vs. come ne P5'ISa'Sa o s
''s' ag9pt5f. ,} jmfr .a'Gs rg.,sly as tes ,re g
.NTfecSta@ / would say hat the prosecution Dc
~ reelection IA any possible Ny OF the counsel or th'
',ronry hist Inc Information which We have defiSe3
Which we thought It ar duty 20 DO what we hay,
S eSgnssl @ sS5c, tna u I'D no Rct r. any yay qPgF9 n.
s''.n ,ts' .ptisncd ns that uc Juror is not such
"a r SSd nam Jn RIS ne Ss,u 81 to 5y s 'gs ss ss !, 9S
/ L1y IRON thelr ever memorable book,
THE MODEL JURYMAN."
~ ssk the Court not 10 enter into an Investigation
q NE matter bot to slloEus TO exercise tho right
II Iutmptory challenge. The question il whether We
A having learned these things which have communi
Gated To the other side 10 manner whi ch does not
tufe publicity and communicated them to the Court
II nave not iht right OF pcremptory challenge,
MI fuN'ton-1hey ask the consent Of the Court {,
exercise that right II the Court does give it, consent
II Nshnud be- upon some KIND Of proof. They point 4
tunur We point 10 the examination OF that Juror
N'' negatives every cause VI suspicion, He dcnieI
lu.'ry under oath thar the thing stands charge,
II "'hl' true. We place the sworn testimony of th
II "' lyman against this Idle rumOT.
Judge Davis was of the opinion that il was II
Il lie discretion Of the Court 10 grant the chal
Il alteration.
Mr. Fullerton said that the right Of peremp
Tory challenge had been exercised with refer
enc" to the then attitude Of the jury, and N,
prGpo sed action would be an injustice 10 them
Judge Davis said he would allow any Juror al
Wy challenged TO be recalled and the chal
lehs" to be Withdrawn,
/ VT Fulleron-That il new deal after they hay
!. q, % .YrIr trump card.
Judge pavi.|fhat Is an argument that canno
Answer. ILaughterl
l After a recess, Judge Davis suggested tha
4 me better method Of settling the question O
withdrawing a juror Was 10y arrangement Gmon
" COUNSEL; hut If they did not agree with him
II iN,u hr wa willing to hear counsel further, bu
ui,3 Dn ihc question of the power Of the Court
Nj ItdAam proceeded 10 argue that, asd
rom The question Of power OF the Court, ther
I'll VIZ hE'h'" question of whether the Court ooul,
"f' va "a chse upon anything but evidence ia on