The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-29
BAUM AT BAY.
The trial OF tho Cotton Cases Begun nj
Last.
Trouble In Getting a Jury-restinopy
Taking.
Scenes and Incidents In the Corr.

CAmmack anu others IN the famous cottoh |
cases, came up In the distHot court before |
Judge Aldridge ~ o o'clock yesterday |
morning. There was hn unusually large |
crowd In the cour. room. Baum appeared |
auto recovered from the illaesa which post |
poned the case on Saturday, aud sat &C the
liable with his counsel. l.ohensteln was
also present most OF the day. A,ss
docket disposed OF, the conr, called
Baum's case on tue indictment
charging him with swindllne oliver q |
Griggs cut OF 1000 by means OF a fraud. |
ulsnt bill OF lading. Both prosecution ana
defense announced themselves ready, anu
the twsnty.four Jurors forming the panel
for the week answered TO their names.
County Alt ,rnry CllDt tnep nut the gem |
ersl question 10 the aurora M TO whether
they had any opinion which would Affect
their verdict, whereupoa Ffapcls Fendrick,
one Of the panel, proceeded to state tina, he
had decided views on the subisct aud
Thought the defendant guilty, whereat
Bsum's five legal advisers jumped mp TO
object, and ihs court excused Mr.. Fen.
dick nom farther duty. Mr.. Clint then
asked his general question sgain and
receiving no response turned the same over
10 Colonel Crawford for examination.
GETTING THE JURY.
Each Juror then ran gauntlet oil quei'
tons TO test his competency with me fol-
lowing results:
Sidney Smith knew PAum by sight only;
had formed An opinion watch II would take
evidence 10 remove. The court told him
10 stand aside.
George W. Berry had formed no opinion
M 10 the guilt or innocence OF defendant,
although he had heard ibe case talked
about and had read about II; had served rs
n inror for five days lew weeks ago.
William Il. Iliinesworih had no opinion
as to the guilt or innocence oil Baum, aud
knew very little about tho case.
William Rodgors mad known defendant
three wears: had M opinion as TO his guilt
or innoceuce. He was ,old to ANA aside.
b. Malone had no bias or opinion ID %
defendants guilt or inuo 'ence.
J. b. Hadden was free from opinion OF
bias In reference to the case.
G. Il Starnss had heard the case talked
about, but had formed no opinion, and had
no pre- JUDGE against the prisoner.
ID, g. Burgess had no opinion, although
he had talked aDout the case and heard
others talk about IL, nut IA he had served
ten days on tue jury within six months, he
was excused.
w. Ii. Harris had heard very little Of the
case, and was free from opinion or pre1u-
dice.
O. l.. Knight was ia the same neutral
frame OF mind.
James Bracher took 10 paper. had never
heard the case talked about aud wac un-
biased.
d. q. Brown had no opinion about The
merits OF the case.
This was likewise the case with John
Worley and John Cameron.
o. w, Dyer did not knog defendant ex-
cept by sight NJ Cheap john" He was
challenged on the ground that lie served
six days on the jury during the past six
George W. Glover aud A. II. Messon de.
clsrsd themselves Tree from opinion or
prejudice.
II N. Haskell I'D no opinion, but had
served nine days within Fix months MS juror,
and was excused.
George w. Willisms, IL. T. Martin,
George 8. knight and j. A. Wright were
all found to be without option or bias.
j. s. Peacock ra;her reluctantly owned 10
holding views which would not make him
an impartial Juror He was EXCUSED.
The panel was now exhausted. and only
seventeen of the twenty .iour eligible
men from whose numher yne twelve good
men and true were 10 be srpek for the
trial of the cause, mad been secured. An
adjournment was Accordingly taken until 2
o, M, and the sheriff directed to summon
fresh panel in the meanwhile.
ArTEAnooE sKisloN
The court reassen blou ut 2o'clock and
the freshly summoned pHnei % Jurors were
questioned with the following result:
j. s Smith sale lie had read and talked
about the case and may have expressed al
opinion. Mr.. Smith remarked or course
Ihaye heard ali about the swindle.'
The Court-Stop, We don't want TO hear
about that
Mr.. Smith stood aside
Isaac Story had no opinions 10 render
him eligible, but MS nc had doae jury duty
for seven days within SIX monthe he Wac
excused.
]. II. Curry. T NJ Jones, Robert Blu ker,
8. A. Murdoch, H. W. Martin, James Coca
ran aud Whit Webb, after sustaining an
ordeal Of questions, were found nee from
any objection which tt challenge Tor cause
could cure, and the necessary panel oil
twenty our WAS secured. OF these the de-
tense then perempiorily challenged nine
and the prosecution five, and 1t was neces'
sary elil to secure two. This was
quickly done. S. s. Nocls, j. s, Phillips
and James Horton were called, and
the defense hsvine expended their last
challenge on Phillips, the other two were
accepted, the Jury ~ completed aud sworn
being as follows: Buck Malone, John Came
ron, G. w. Glover, j. II. Meason, J. II.
Curry, r. NJ. Jonee, Robert Bumpas, 8. a.
Murdoch, q. w. Martin. Whit Webb, S. 3.
Noels, James Horton.
COMING DOWN TO BUsINEss.
County Attorney Clint read the indict- |
ment TO the Jury, and Colonel Crawford, for |
Baum, entered plea of not guilty. The
witnesses Oh both sides we're called. and
those who answered wsre sworn. In the |
number OF thoe called by, the
prosecution were Il. ID. Easton
and Mrs, Easton. But neither were
in the courtroom The fact That Eas,on's
testimony will 90 given In behhli OF the
state aud against the other defendants In
the cotton cases caused mnrmur OF sS-
pectapcy In The crowd when his name was
called, The names oi Morgan Cammack
and Mre. Uammuck and OF Joe Lohenstein
were also called rs witnesses for the prose'
cutiou, They did not respond. Lohen-