The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-11-24
DAV|S' DUPES.
Another Batch of Election
Scoundrels on Trial
Today.
EXCELLENT STRUCK JURY.
sMr. Winfield Indicates That He
! Will Go to the Bottom Of
the Joker Conspiracy.
BOB OCCUPIES THE ANXIOUS SEAT.

The third batch of election scoundrels
TO stand trial were in the Court OF Ses-
sions today. They were John A. Whalen,
Judge Joseph G.. Mulrain. David Gordon,
inspectors, and Martin J. White, clerk.
These men were the election officers of
the Second precinct Of the Second dis
trict, November, 1889. and through their
devotion to the Ring succeeded in voting
enough people to place their liberty in
jeopardy. The only one OF the counsel
absent was Lawyer Vredenburgh, but
Messrs. Garretson, Hudspeth, DAILY and
Black were early on hand ana full Of
fight. The early proceedings Of the trial
In the selection of the jury did not differ
materially from the other trials except so
far as it relates to Jurors Henry McClel-
land and Alfred H. Alexander.
who were fined by Judge Lippin-
colt $3.50 each for not being in Court
Another curious episode was the irregu-
lar return of the summons of Juror
Travers. This had the appearance of
being irregular purposely. but it may
have been accidental.
ON THE RACK. TOO
During the greater portion of the day
ex-Sneriff Davis sat beside the counsel
for the accused and frequently consul ted
with them. He took as much interest
in the proceedings as the prisoners them
selves, and to watch him one would have
been impressed with the idea that he was
on trial also
The jury selected is a good one and
consists o. Colonel 4. A. Stevens. fore
man; S. ID. Kmball, Frank Lockwood,
Jacob Van Amburgh, John G. w. Craw-
ford. John l.. Cramer. George y. Travers,
George l.. Heath. John Wills, Fred Win
ter. William p. Wescott, Jr., and Dickin-
son NJ Van Worst.
When the Prosecutor reaches the ballot
on which General Grubb's name is posted
he Will probably develope something sem
sational. for ne claims it was counted
, under an agreement that more OF like
Apature should get there. IL has not
Xtranspired yet in whose Interest the bal
= lots were to be voted, and why Governor
= "a bbett should be knitted. The Prosecutor
u promises to have It appear II possible.
THE USUAL F0RMALITIES.
Ex-Judge Garrettson made his formal
motion to quash the indictment against
the defendants which covered precisely
the same grounds as in the other two
cases and also challenged all the jurors
,1jSefcrc their names we're drawn from the
Aox, because all the jurors summoned
t-ere not present In court. The court
9verruled the motion to guash the in
l<dictment and refused to allow the chal-
, lenge. An exception was granted.
Ex-Judge GarreLson then claimed that
Juror Alexander had not been properly
summoned and that the proper return
had not been made. He challenged the
array again on this ground. The Court
overruled him and another exception was
granted.
was the next juror called. He was form
ally challenged by ex-Judge Garretson
and was examined by Counsellor w. ID.
DAILY. He had heard of joker ballots,
dead men voting and had read the SEN
ate investigation. Colonel Stevens said
this was a matter of public record and
something every man ought to read He
had formed no prejudice against the de-
PENDANTS and could give an impartial YER
dict. Colonel Stevens was accepted by
the Court as foreman of the jury.
S. ID. Kimball, cashier of the First Ma
tional Bank, HoDoken, was the next juror
called. The same routine questions for
the purpose of raising questions to have
the Supreme Court decide on, were asked
him. He believed If the ballot box stuff
ers were guilty they should be punished.
Was not prejudiced. The challenge was
not sustained.
Frank Lockwood, real estate agent. of
Washington street, Jersey City. was next
called. When challenged he said he had
expressed the opinion that II guilty the
election officers ought to be punished.
He felt a little prejudiced, but not enough
to influence lis verdict. He felt embit-
tered against the election officers in gen.
eral for the crime committed. He was
not embittered against any one person in
particular. The challenge was over
ruled and Mr.. Lockwood made the third
juror.
Louis Ettinger, merchant. Hoboken, the
fourth juror to come from the box. was
challenged and in the course of set ques-
fr-S ho Cnf a nraIndlppd q
could not render fair verdict.
Cross-examined by Mr.. Winfield, the
juror said he was not personally ac-
quainted with the defendants, but that
the evidence could not overcome his pre-
judice-
The Court remarked:-"You are the
most peculiar juror this Court has ever
seen. You are not wanted as juror. but
the Court is in doubt whether you are fit
10 exercise the duties of citizenship In
anything. The juror is excused"
Harry McCleliand was next called, but
did not answer. The Court directed the
clerk to enter upon the minutes a fine
against him Of $3.50.
HIS IGNORANCE WAS SUSPICIOUS.
The next Juror called was William
MachoId. He knew so little about the
case thar Lawyer DAILY became suspicious
and he peremptorily challenged him on
behalf or Whalen.
The Court refused to allow the chal-
ltlke tOF one uelcuuaul, OUT eACuScu tHc
juror on behalf of all the defendants
The juror was excused, and an exception
was taken to the ruling.
Henry w. Beach, grocer, Newark ave-
nue, was accepted as the fifth juror after
the usual questions were asked.
Jacob d. Van Amburgh, wheelwright,
Jersey City, had read of the election
frauds and said he was unprejudiced.
He was accepted as the sixth juror
John G.. L. Crawford, sixty-two years
old, collector. Jersey City, had read OF the
frauds but did not know one precinct
from another. He was accepted by the
Court.
John L. Cramer, grain and feed mer-
ch MT. Jersey City. next called. had read
of the election frauds, but did not remem-
Der the localities where the frauds took
place He believed If the election officers
were guilty they should be punished. He
had formed no opinion as 20 whether the
defendants were guilty. Could decide
the case fairly and impartially. The
challenge was overruled and Mr. Cramer
became the seventh juror.
Aaron Behrens. Hoboken, next called,
said he had read of the frauds but he did
not know by whom they were committed.
Formed no opinion.
Counsellor Hudspeth on behalf Of
Martin j. White challenged the juror
DeremptoriIT The court made the ruling