New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-11-25
THE JURY COULD NOT AGREE.


1
juryroom and whom found in his produce store at No 81
Gansevoortst. yesterday his jaw which wa
considerably swollen. enveloped In silk handker
chief.
was painful for me to talk, as It Is now and so did
not participate In the arguments In the Jury room
Recorder ..S the ,, matter saaa r sDs
rant conviction, necessarily voted for acquitta
THE CAsE FULLY PROVED.
Next TO Mr. Ifmmons In jury-box sat John Dough
erty another produce dealer. who thought that the
had oonclusvey proved that McQuade
was subject for long term In the Sing Sing prison
Like other Jurors. he said. when found in his store
at No. 1876 Readest that he had conscentousy voted
his best Judgment directed
JUROR BURcK's REASONING.
Juror william Burck enjoys the distinction Of being the
youngest man Of the twelve. lie Is interested In q
candy store at No 81 Eighthave and seated at Of
the handicapped tables in his place Of business last
evening he entertained group OF his patrons and
with OF his ideas about McQuades He
said:
discharged but when Colonel Fellows had talked little
while began think that perhaps he ought to be
doubt and hardly knew which way To vote when the
however, to give McQuade the benefit of any doubt and
did So Then. too saw that good many older and con
for acquittal ard thought that must be right While
think that McQuade any good to accept
shown by evidence that had in favor of the
Broadway Railroad franchise before he elected
OF course. IL he took money from the Broadway Rail
road people it made difference with his vote the
franchise question and therefore do not think he Is
principle and easily influenced, 1t was only natural
that :, his name should have have appeared
f Board the of cal Ado%en when
resolution was passed over the Mayors veto"
40 DOUBT IN MR.. FR,'s MIND
H. tio trrr
"gcntleman" He is likewise and lives at No
1877 Tenthave, Like Messrs Lounsbury and Dougherty
he expressed himself satisfied that McQuade had been
proved guilty and could not understand why nine Of his
associates insisted that he innocent Mr. Fry weighed
the evidence carefully, according TO his words and
failed find anything in 1t to change the opinion written
by him on the first ballot
MIR. NUGRNr NOT CONVINCED.
Thomas A. Nugent, No 8. Is indignant at the published
that professional juryman and that he
relative OF Mrs. cQuade He denied both allegations
emphatioay.
"The statement that overanxious to serve on the
Jury Is q contemplate lie," said he. when my
was called and was examined I answered
both sides That have served juries before is true
but not from choice assure you As Juror always
evidence from one side to the other From the court
a Ee the Of % apS Worth snyag we could
accept II not could reject It, lie said. furthermore,
that without the evidence OF the two accompces he did
TO convict did not believe the the accompces
aud therefore voted for acquttal inasmueh there
seemed to be doubt OF guilt far the evidence
concerned"
MIX. FALK's sHIFrING OPINIONS
Henry Falk the ninth juror and It was he who first
voted for conviction, then all and finally for acquit
tai. lie dealer in trimmings, occupying portion OF
the store at No 457 Thave and living at No 2l0 East
Thirty-sixthst His change of mind after the first ballot
WAS brought about by the argument that the evidence
sufficient to convict aud he saws that there is
the
II rests entirely with the prosecution He mentioned
several points OF difference between Fulgrafs and
Dys stories laying particular stress the fact that
while Fugraf had said that $1,000 had been paid In one
the same nstalment at 81 900 said that ho felt all
through the trial and III the jury Groom mat puDc
considering his oath OF office and the Recorders charge
and having heard the tes mony argued from all points
OF view. he could conscentiousy vote otherwise than
for acquittal.
A RATHER PERTINENT SUGGESTION.
Jacob Lebkuchner. jr, juror No H. Is bother at NO.
sos rhrave, and lives at No 81 East nehundrei land
twenty thrlst He thinks the evidence brought ont by
the prosecution much weakened by the Recorders
Charge and when yesterday wanted to know why II
the combine" met frequently at McLo ighin's house
the DistrctAttorney did not put one OF ACLOuSnlns
servants on the stand to prove It,
WHY 80. II CHANGED SIDES.
Moritz Kzinger, an agent at No 60 Princes, the
twelfth man chosen try McQuade and one of the
two jurors who changed his mind after the first ballot
He explains his action In this way
when retired begin deliberations was fully
satisfied that McQuade had been proved guilty. was
not at all satisfied with Fugrafs testimony and placed
no reliance in Duffy, but taking all the facts to-
gether | thought the chain OF evidence complete.
After the second ballot one OF the jurors drew my atte
ton to the CLAUSE in the judges charge In With
we were instructed that unless we found
enough corrOboratiye evidence In support of the
accompces stories to convict the prisoner he must be
acquitted. changed my vote in favor OF acquttaL
firmly believe that McQuade guilty but do not think
the exact in which he received his money has
yet toll Fulraf says he received 5000 for his
vote for the Broadway franchise while Duhy only got
$40 600 Now IL seems that II the combine
which talked OF by Duffy formed each one OF the
thirteen would received the amount OF money.
Why should one hold himself cheaper than another
That Is OF the things that ought TO be
discOv cred"
JOY RElGNS AMONG THE EX-ALDERMEN.
GREAT SATISFACTION NATURALLY OVER MQUADHs