The Saline County journal. [volume] (Salina, Kan.) 1871-1893, 1884-06-26

questions tending 10 disclose what his
views were; that the testimony in
that case showed the guilt Of the de
PENDANT beyond any question Of doubt,
and such testimony was not disputed
by any witness That in the conduct
Of said court, Judge Prescott mani
Tested no prejudice, and his artiOns
impressed afliant ns being entirely
fair and impartial That the county
attorney, Joseph Moore, and the
cOunsel associated with him conducted
themselves calmly and with firmness
toward the defendant. and further
afiiant saith not l.. NJ. SHAW.
Subscribed and sworn 90 before inc.
this 18th day Of June. 1854.
w. H. BISHOP, Notary Public.
STATE OF KANsARl
SALINE COUNTY,
Jonas Beniield being duly sworn
says that he was a juror nc the May,
1854, term Of the District court Of Sa-
line county, Kansas, and at said term
served as a juror In the following
cases, tO-wit: state vs.. VIM. III.
sweeney, State W Jacob MugleT,
state W. VIM. Huehner. State vs..
Peter Mugler. That in the impanel-
ling Of the juries he heard no one
questioned as TO his sentiments upon
the prOhibitUry law except as 10 the
penalties and the enforcement thereof.
That he was then and is now, not In
favor of said law I'm every particular.
That he is not strictly a Temperance
man, nor fanatic ON the question Of
prohibition. That he was not asked
any question tending TO disclose his
views on said law. That the testi-
luOny In these cases showed the guilt
Of defendants beyond any question or
doubt that in the case Of the State
VS.. Peter Mugler, the testimony
showed that the defendant did sell.
barter and give away Intoxicating
liquors at the time, and during the
progress or the trial. That IN the
conduct Of said eases Judge Prescott
manifested no prejudice and his act
ions impressed afiiant as being entire
~ fair and impartial. That the
county attorney, Joseph Moore, and
the counsel associated with him con-
Quoted themselves calmly and with
fairness towards the defendants ana
further afiiant saith not.
]. BENFIELD.
Subscribed and sworn to before me,
this 18th day OF June, 1884.
w. H. BISHOP, Notary Public.
STATE or KANSAS.
SALINE COUNTY,
w. &. Fore being duly sworn says
that he was juror AZ the May term
Of the District court OF Saline county,
Kansas, and at said term served as q
juror In the eases Of State VS.. William
Huebner, State vs.. Peter Mugler,
State vs.. NJ. J. Ludes. That I'm the
impanelling OF the juries heard no
one questioned as 10 his sentiments
upon the prOhibitory law except as to
the penalties and the enforcement
thereof; that he Is not a fanatic ON
the question Of the prOhibitOry liquor
law, but simply in favor Of its en-
fOrcement while il Is law; that he
was not asked any question tending
TO disclose what his views were that
the testimony in these cases showed
the guilt Of the defendants beyond
any question or doubt; such tesii-
mOny was not disputed by any wit
ness; that In the case Of the State VS..
Peter Mugier the testimony showed
that he, the defendant, did sell, bar
ter and give away intoxicating liquors
at the time and during the progress Of
LAN tAAal- III tAlt Nuuuutl OF the cases
Judge Prescott manifested no preiu-
dice and his actions impressed affiant
as being entirely fair and impartial
that the county attorney, Joseph
Moore, and the counsel associated
with him conducted themselves
calmly and impartially towards the
defendants. And further afiiant
saith not. VIC. FOKE.
Subscribed and sworn To before me,
this 18th day Of June, 1884.
w. II. BISHOP. Notary Public.
STATE OF KANSAS, Is
SALINE COUNTY
w. J. HagleT, being duly sworn
says that he isa resident Of Salina, A.
years Of age and engaged in the mer-
camille business that he was on the
regular panel of jurors ut the May
term, 1854, of the District court 81
said county, and sat ~ Juror ia the
case Of the Stale ~ VIM. H. Sweeney:
that when examined as to his cOmpe-
tency To sit as Juror in said case he
answered that he had an opinion as 10
the guilt Of the defendant founded
upon what he had heard as we'll as
matters that had come under his per
sonal observation. Whereupon eOun-
sci for the Stale informed the court
that they challenged for cause of
opinion formed. and J. q. MOhler.
one OF the attorneys for the defendant,
stated TO the court that they objected
In HHN# q n