The daily gazette., 1883-02-28
REPRlNrE0 FRoM YEsTERDAy
THE ELECTToN SHOOTING.
John W. cronsy's Trial Commenced This
hTorninn.

Az the opening OF the adjourned session
OF the Court OF Oyer and Termlner, Quarter
Sessions and Superior Court this morning,
at 10 o'clock, tho spectators seats were soon
occupied by an expectant audience. Chief
Justice Comegys and associates Wootten,
Wales and Houston occupied tho bench.
The regular jurors being called three Of the
panel were found absent and two Of the
additional panel failed to answer TO their
naIues.
Clerk OF the Peace Cochran chen called
the names OF witnesses for the State In the
case Of the Commonwealth VS.. John
Oroney. OF 28 called IA failed to answer
to their nance. For the defense SO names
were read, falling to reply. Among the
latter were Henry G. Conrad, Esq, and
Andrew j. Connor, the witness ON account
Of whose sickness the case was postponed at
the last session Of court.
Levi Bird, ESQ.,, counsel for John Croney,
stated that Conner, the sick witness, was
still In the hands OF q physician, but as 1t
Was thought he might be brought 70 court
tomorrow In = carriage the defence was
periecuy willing to run the risk and 90 on
with the aaee,
Attorney -General Gray asked II It would
not Be best to look over the list OF absent
witnesaes and see II it would be necessary
TO Issue attachments for their appearance.
At 1888 Croney was brought into court
between two baillfis and placed In the dock.
he was dressed the came as at bis last ap-
pearance, but was not as pale as then, his
face being slightly flushed. Upon taking
his seat he was greeted by Col. Whitley and
Mr.. Bird, his counsel, who shook him by
| the hand.
The manner Of interrogating jurors when
sworn was discussed by the Attorney Gen.
eTal, the court and the counsel for the de-
fense, there being some changes In the law
since the last murder trial before the court,
giving the State the right to ten challenges.
Mr.. Bird stated that the prisoner had been
indicted, arrignsd and had pleaded at the
November term Of court. Since that time
there had been changes made In the manner
OF choosing juries, BY statutes passed at the
present session Of the Legislature, and It
was question, he thought, whether that
law would hold in the case Of an Indictment
/ found before It was enacted.
| AttOrney-Generai Gray did not think the
law just passed would in any manner i'm
| pair effect or diminish the rights of the
prisoner. The objections, if any were
made, could be merely technical ones.
| Colonel Whiteley and Mr.. Bird both
spoke upon the law giving the State 10 per-
emptory challenges. The latter said a law
had also been passed by which prisoner In
a capital case should have 81 jurors to draw
from, but it could not be used
in the present case. Out Of the
whole number OF IS jurors, after the chal-
lenges Of the State and the defense had been
made only is men remained. 1t would be
found, he thought, when the jury came to
be drawn that many had formed an opinion.
The case had been much talked Of In hil
lopinion the State should have no right to
Il challenge, something which should only be
NInatfi sHnrt. 40 he Aac. "a. H.
thought, was unjust.
Mr.. Gray thought the law giving the STATE
right 70 challenge had nothing 10 do will
the subsequent law placing the panel In
capital cases at o..
Judge Houston was Of the opinion that (
the State assumed the right to the chal
lenges the defense surely was entitled TO tn,
additional number of Jurors provided by tn
new law for capital cases.
1t was shown that the additional juror
could not have been drawn since the Law
was enacted, inasmuch as such drawing
had TO be done 20 days prior TO the sitting o
court.
At Ills the defense was announced a
being ready to proceed.
Clerk Cochran then read the Indictment
voluminous document setting forth In tn
usual verbose wording the manner of tn
shooting.
The prisoner was informed of his right t
challenge, and the drawing of the jurors bs
gan, with the understanding that the Stat
should have It's ten challenges If desired.
The first man drawn was Thoma
Cochran. In response to the question b
Mr.. Bird he stated that he'had not forme
!, and expressed an opinion IA regard To th
guilt or innocence of the prisoner. To Mr.
| Gray he replied that he had no consciou
e scruples against finding q verdict of guilt
in cases where the penalty was deatl
4 Challenged by the defense.
Aaron Reynolds, the second man called
had formed an opinion in the case but coul
render an impartial verdict according to III
testimony. He was, however, challenge
Edward N. Worrell, MIL Creek, a youn
man about three and twenty had no opinio
and no conscientious eeruples, and wi
sworn In as juror No. /.
r He WAS quickly followed by Fred Klai
aged perhaps 80 years, Christiana, WI
might have formed an opinion, but had IL,
expressed 1t.
Daniel J. Hyatt, no opinions, no scruple
challenged.
', third man to take his seat. He Is about
y !" years of age, and had expressed no opinio
~ and had no scruples.
n Peter j. Mulligan, who had formed a
/. opinion, was challenged by the defense.
John IL. Woodward, Mil Creek, was Il
fourth juror sworn.
Jesse Chandler, who did not feel able
render an impartial verdict, was challenge,
William Miller, Wilmington, had form,
=. an opinion within the past "a hours, b,
, would be able to render a verdict acsordln
to the evidence. He had no serupl
against capital punishment. He was cha
lenged by Attorney General Gray for Il
State, being the first jurors to be SO set asi'
under the new law.
The entire panel of jurors was exhauste
and the doors closed to prevent any ol
from leaving the court room. Elev,
jurors had then been drawn. The one tall
- man called, George Reeve, Wilmington, VI
accepted and the panel completed.
The further challenges Of the defen
were Jacob Pusey, John Lynch, Frank
Pennington, VIM. j. Lee, George BrocksoI
Andrew ]. Mote, John L. Simmons, WI
7. Biggs, Nathaniel Newman, Julien
Janvier, William w. Atwood, Charles v
Walker, Joseph Rankin, Allen McElwe
Israel Whiteman, Joseph s. Dunlap, Walt
Z. Hart, the last of the panel. The enu
number of challenges allowed by law we
made.
The States challenges, besides the oil
named, were Ezra Pierce, William J. Bar
and Henry Stafford.
Those stood aside as being unable to gi
an impartial verdict, were Frederic
johnson; Samuel Moore, Edwin Grave
John r. Lyman, Jr., William j. Strou
Samuel G. McIntire.