Telegram-herald., 1889-09-01
LAWYERS ron TsE DEEENsE


hessrE Forrest Donshoe, Foster. Ames.
Senator Kennedy and Judge Wing. while
behind them were the clients the five
prisoners on trial Ccughiin. Beegs and
kunze in the front row OF three chairs and
Burke and o sullivan bringing mp he rear.
Eight Jurors weEs examined hy the State,
four OF whom we're accepted and four re-
iected. The court adjourned at % p. m
CHICAGO. Aug 3l.-IAc work OF securing
Jury In the Cronin case was re-
s1med In judge McConneirs court at
1910 a. m No one but those
having business shere. such as Jury
men, lawyers xne reporters were admitted.
The four jurors. J. W. Bridger. l. l. Lilli-
bridge, VIM s Bigley and A. w. Roth who
had been passed by Judge Longenecker
last night were brought in in charge of
bauifs II soon became apparent how
ever, that the States Attorney had
strong objections to Mr. Bigley. who had
admitted an acquaintance with Alexander
Sullivan aud after closely question ng
Bigley and making him admit that he
would hesitate TO hang a man on circum-
stantial evidence, the juror in spite Of Mr.
Forests prot cts was excused for cause
Mr. Roth was also excused for cause. and
chs States Attorney after consultation
used his hrst peremptory challenge and
excused Mr. Bridger. This left only Mr.
Elllbridge. with whom Judge Longenecker
seemed % be satisfied, and further exam
lnstion OF those impaneled resui ed n the
acceptance OF W E Lathrop. Louis
Shaw and e T. Deck Mr. Wing for tho
defense, then began his examination of tho
Jurors, commencing on Mr.. Lilliblidge
The case has gone far enough TO Indicate
pretty conclusively the line OF evidence
upon which the prosecution viii rely II
the questions put to Jurors on the eXRmina-
tion point to any thing they point TO the
conclusion that circumstantial evidence
sni that alone is relied on for
conviction. Woodruff and his con-
fessions seem 10 have dropped cut
OF the case as factor IN it At
any rate. whatever he knows or can tell
viii be used rather as coHOboIating the
ciTcunstsntal evidence adduced than as
being direct testimony TO the murder
OF the conspiracy OF which II was g
part Every man in the 1ury-bOx that
wss examined By the State was gues-
toned closely as 70 Whe ther he be leved ia
ctrcumstantial evidence. Any hesitancy on
the part OF the prospective juror 10 clearly
express bis confidence in this sort CT evil
dence was the initial point of search
Ing examination BY the States A-tor-
ney. A principal question with
Mr. Lon2enecker. who conducted the eN
amin alton OF jurors on behalf OF tho state,
was "Snpposing Il should turn out "a tho
trial OF this Csc that the evidence is
mainly circumrtautial, II 10 convinces you
beyond a reasonable doubt @, the guilt Of
these defendants would you feel # ' 'ur
duty 10 fad them guilty Just the same as II
the evidence was dirsct2'
wnfs the State is evidently relying on
circumst initial evidence 10 procure con
viotion. there sre not wanting Indications
that it expects to present a convincing ar
ray OF circumstances proving the
guilt Of the defendants or some Of
them The question Of conscientious
scruples about the death penalty
is gone into with each Juror Nor Is
sny faitcrng ca this point by Juror al
lowed Ine Juror who satisfactori ? az
ssrsrod the questions as - circnus.altisi
ev dence and the death penalty tbea had a
combination 0f ths two thrust % 1|D TO
he a safe and sound iufor IN the eyes
Of tue prosecution hs r2lst be wiling
q ;nHict the death penalty upon
proof Of guilt b7 oircums.an liai ev
idenca under ths same conl'to
that be would II gui.s were provel HF d.
rect testimony r doctriuaiT sonn1 on
tho uarelv intellectual questions ~ Ell
deucs and penalty The isror vas ones
tened ~ % ats psst lie assoeates and
huS.ness and so-isl connect 9na 20
see tsst No rs~p or bias had enEen-
dsrsd IA bin saT o. those pre- IEa.ces
OF cratcsets -aich r~rder fhe 500 nj
e.s ln*@ilscruaItv unrs able here the
f1ror as bern. rsers he had lived. be oc