The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1874-11-18
II Pinklsy Incompetent Or 10 he Tool for
The Poor Hsirsi

The Poor Hsirsi
The late hour Of the day yesterday at
which the case Of the City vs.. the Ferry
Co. was, in the classic and purely legal
phrase of Pinkley, busted" made it i'm
possible for THE ARGUS to give the story
of the case in detail, in last evenings pa
per. The suit was set for o'clock A. NJ.
Robinson, with four-horse team of law
yers, was on hand and called for jury OF
IL men. 1t was about II o'clock when the
twelve men summoned were in attendance.
City Attorney Gest examined them and
challenged two-H. A. Smyth and Jacob
Wollenhaupt-for cause, and George Lu-
kens peremptorily. The counsel for the
Ferry Co.-Sweeney & Jackson and Con-
nelly & McNeal--examined the two jurors
challenged for cause. and the City Attor-
news challenge was allowed, as they stated
that they had formed and expressed their
opinion upon the material points in issue,
As it was then noon the court adjourned
till 1880 o'clock, at which time three more
jurors we're called to take the place Of those
challenged. to-wit: Mayer Rosenheld, John
Albrecbt, and Mr.. Taylor, of the Bellows
House. The City Attorney examined
them and stated that he took the jury.
The defense then had the jury for exam
nation and to pass upon. They challenged
Mr.. Resented and Mr.. Taylor, for cause,
and their challenge was allowed by Pink
lev. Two Jurors we're then called by the
defense, in place of the two challenged
Thew were first examined by the counsel
for the defense, who said We take these
two jurors.
The City Attorney then stated that by
rule of law which prevailed in all courts
they had accepted the w..ole jury. Ihey
said they had not, and would pass on the
remaining ten after the City Attorney nao
passed on the two taken by them After
some discussion, 10 which counsel for de-
Tense stated to the court that they had
made bIunder in their proceeding and
begged to be relieved, the court ruled In
their favor.
The City Attorney then stated that at
the opening of court in the afternoon he
had desired to challenge some OF the nine
Jurors whom he had not challenged in the
N orning, but had not done so because he
considered, by the rule of law which was
admitted by counsel for defense to be cor
rect, he could not do so and asked, if the
rule was to be set aside and defendant all
lowed further challenge because his coun'
sci had made blunder, that the same
privilege of further challenge be allowed
the City. Pinkley decided that counsel fol
defense could inquire of and challenge thu
remaining ten jurors as they pleased. bu
that the City Attorney could not, and that
the City Attorney should pass on their two
Jurors before counsel for defense should b'
required to pass on the ten.
The City Attorney thereupon stated t.
the Justice that he did not propose to tr.
case before a court that would make sucl
manfestly unfair ruling: court tina
would grant favor TO one side because ;
four horse team of lawyers had Numbered
and refuse to extend the same privilege t.
the single man on the other side.
Mr.. Gest then took his books and paper
and left the Office, and the case then was
according to the decision and in the elega'
and strictly classical terms of Pinkiey-
busted"
Outside of the two firms employed in tn
defense of this case, there cannot be fount
the merest tyro in the law who will not sa.
that the City Attorney was right in his po
sitiou. We haye talked with several G
our best attorneys and they all say pos
lively and emphatically that Mr.. Gest wa
right, and that Pinkley is unfit for the pr
si,ion of a magistrates, either from lac'
of knowledge, or by reason of tavoritisn