The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-02-28

opinion would be the same, ana IL wOuld
take testimony to change IL, but he had
formed no opinion as to the justiflableness
OF the killing. Had no opinion now as To
whether a crime was committed when
Gambrell was killed. Believes that when
man kills another willfully he ought TO
be hung for IL The court ruled that he
was a competent juror. He was challenged
by the State. :,
IIatton Samples, colored, had heard
some OF the testimony read from q Brandon
paper by his children, but had formed no
opinion ms to guilt or innocence OF the de-
PENDANT Hamilton and was not opposed TO
the death penalty. What witness heard
from the papers would not control him in
forming q verdict. The court ruled that
he was a competent Juror. He was nc
ccptcd by the State and the defense and
placed in charge Of the sheriff.
Richard Moore claimed to be exempt
because lac was over sixty years OF age,
and was discharged.
j. 4, Nicely, who had not been sum-
moncd, was called but did not answer.
J. II. McAlpin had heard the fact that
Gamhrell was killed, but had heard Moth
ing OF the particulars. Had talked TO Sow
cral persons about the case. Hud no bias
or prejudice against the defendant. He
was held 10 be competent. The State rc-
jected him.
Frank Hester, W. Y. Spann and II. A.
Cooper had read the testimony and formed
opinions rs 10 whether a crime was com
mitted by Hamilton, and were discharged
by the court
Berry Webb, colorcd, had read about
the killing in the papers, but had formed
no opinion. Was not opposed TO hanging
In proper cases lie was adjudged com
pclent aud accepted by the State Al : de-
tense.
Wade Hampton, colored, had heard oil
the killing but, not knowing either ri the
persons, had paid but little attention 10 IT,
Thinks TINT men ought sometimes to be
hung for the crimes thoy do. The courl
said lac was competent. The State nc
ocpted him, but the defense rejected him.
Lem Ellis had fixed opinion, and was
discharged by the court,
4. NJ. Bounds, W. &. Baker, ID. N. Rob.
ins, ID. 4. Jowcry and ii. X. Gilmore had
heard what purported 10 be tho particulars
Of the killing, had fixed opinions and wero
seyorllly discharged by the court
John Loilin had heard the circumstances
connected with the killing, but had formed
no fixed opinion OF the guilt or innocence
al the defendant and had never expressed
any opinion when talking 10 others about
the case. Had an opinion that could bs
changed by testimony, but II the evidence
should be in accord with what he had
heard his opinion would bc the same. liz
wis discharged Nv the court.
Q. Il. Boone claimed the agc exemption
and was discharged.
John McNair had fixed opinion as Il
the guilt or innocence Of Hamilton, ant
was discharged
4. J. Gates was too unwcll 10 serve rs I
juror, and was discharged.
Charlie Duckworth, colorcd, had hcart
al the killing and some OF the circum
stances aud had an opinion which Il would
take testimony 10 remove, and was dis
charged
4. j. IIett was discharged for tho sam
reason, and NO was 4. s. Lee.
q. o. Grain had heard Of the killing. bu
had not heard the particulars. Had NJ
opinion VI the guilt or innocence Of Ham
ilton. and could Wndcr n verdict free from
prejudice; was not opposed 10 capital pun
ishmeni. lie was adjudgcd competent
and accepted by both sides
Silas Robinson, colorcd, had heard OF
the killing and how II happened. Had
heard a newspaper account Of II read by
the children from the Brandon Rpnbiicdn
and Ind heard some Of the particulars, but
had formed no opinion ~ 10 defendants
guilt on innocence, and thought man
guilty OF murder should be hung. The
couri hold that he WIS q competent Juror
end he was ueccpicd,
Dptfrfg The examination 81 this vcnir
tL<fe WAS an interesting discussion parIic
~ipa,cd in by MI the counsel for the Stat,
aud McsIs. McIaurin, Nugcnt and Cal
houn for the defense. An objection by IN,
latter to the course pursued by the State
The yoir dire examination, II the State
had tho right 30 inquire concerning the
witnesses belief as 10 whether Hamilton
did the killing as matter distinct from the
,riminaliiy 81 the act. the defense insisting
that the inct of the killing was a material
element II the crime changed, and that In,
belief Of the proposed juror concerning /
could not be inquired about, except in the
general form, "ilavc you formed or ex
pressed an opinion concerning Hamilton
guilt OF innoccncc Of the crime with which
lac " chaprd7"
At o o'clock the court adjourned unit
tomorrow morning az y o'clock.
The prosecutor. the Rev ]. II. Gamhrcll
nnd his brother tho Rev. ]. ID. Gamhrcll
won present during the afternoon session
-