The sun., 1890-03-13
STILL BUT TEN IN THE BOX.
ONE NEW JUHOR ADDED AND THE
FOREMAN EXCUSED.
Hats or the Lines or Prosecution and DEE
fepce Disclosed by the Examination OF
Tntesmen in the Case OF the FIackH and

| Ta,esmen in the Case OF the FIRckH and
Mesks-An Interesting Question Asked.
| The work OF securing n jury IN the Flack
| trial would have been uncomfortably tedious
Yesterday but for two circumstances. One was
tho interchange OF witticisms between the rep
rssentatiyeS OF the prosecution and defence.
and the other was n half-veiled disclosure OF
certain lines OF the prosecution and defence,
which came out in questions and remarks oi
the counsel. All tho witnesses but Mrs. FlacK
we're in court, but their services were not
needed. While one new Juror was added to the
list. another was excused, so that the general
result remained the same. and tho work of Sc
curing two moro jurors will have tobe con
tinncd to-day.
Mrs, Flacls position in regard to the case re-
mains unchanged. unless n question pro-
uounded hy Col. Fellows toward the close oil
the afternoon session, and Withdrawn upon
Judge Russell's objection, indicates that her
evidence may be different from what has Deon
oHpcctod. This question startled tho Court
and tho defence. and was the most significant
point in the proceedings 40 far. 1t was ad-
dressed 10 the last OF tho talesmen to DO exam
ined. and was as follows:
"I 1t proves that the divorce was fraudu-
lently obtained with the consent OF Mrs. Flnck
would you hesitate to find the accused guilty."
Whether this means that Mrs. Flack has ad-
mitted that she knew of the divorce proceed
ings and that tho prosecution intends TO hold
that tho accused were nevertheless guilty OF
conspiracy TO defraud justice. or whether tho
question had some other and hidden meaning
could only he conjectured yesterday. Of
course the conspiracy could have existed and
tho fraud hnve been perpetrated oven with
her knowlrdEe. In that event she would no
longer be q witness for the people in the ordl-
nary sense. but co-consprator. whose crime
had been condoned by tho acceptatiun OF her
evidence Ivy tho state. Mrs Flnck remained
within tho reach Of tho District Attorney 8
officers all day, prepared to come TO court II
she was wanted.
early talesmcn. George Levinson. Il painter. Of
Al, second avenue gave frank ana straiEht-
propounded to him, but was finally excused
lor lack Of memory. =, ,,.~.,,
was asked.
What cnndi4ates did you vote for at the last
election :" continued Mr.. Got.
can't YOU tell me the name of any of the
candidates You voted for ~
NO sir; !; don't remomher"
Charles lIimmelsbach was excused because
he was Is personal iriend. of Sherin FlaGk. vii;
liam f. Herman. cashier in hanl ler and
brokers' otlire at 10 Broadway, wns declared
competent by Judge Barrett and accepted by
the prosecution.
viii scarcely ask YOU" asked Mr. Bird,
whether you know sarah Cherrvt"
lie didn't. III" witness defined tho mean
ing OF the word conspiracy 50 accurately that
Jul.e Russell asked in srrrrise: ....-,
Have you read law lhey" sn'ta LAWYER IN
The witness said h." was Presbyterian and
did not believe in divorces except for adultery.
Ions as II churchmAn to interfere with his duty
ns citTen Ino neXt IHe1.iony y,r wieH ~ "pr-
Now" he asked. " il my client wont on the
stand and testified that h" had done what he
Judge. without unY intention Of committing
any wrong, would you ii-.epto him win tho
sane care ns 10 &ny ",hes WItneSs
BookslaNer res ponetic t'r his part IN tho di-
vurco proceedings WAS obJo octcd to y Mr. CON.
Tue defence then challenged the Juror perPmp-
torily. on the ground. a. aftefward almitted.
objection applied to Jacob DnX, II Roman Cath
J1FS Ws HaTTs :r MsmA wsnf! o5j TWsq @ad known
That viii eXcuee YOU" said Nr. Rr'.
You eiyideIntiy don don't want intelligent
Eo"rd %SFSS Sf aptrst !ono MstoHs' noremTe % ao
torily challenged by tie n,cienee; and Thomas
eighth street, suffered tho sam" inte at the
hands o. the rroscrition Conrad Gill Ger
man book binder, had been accepted by 10th
Sides when Il cpunco question 10y Mr. Bird re-
suite in rs IiSInatrfi0n;; =, , lie almit'ei
cus-ei in Il cigar store.
:" llow long did the discussion LAST" asked
Mr.. Bird.
"Ahont an hour"
"nid parties take sides -
" Yes. sir
"Di lie victory rest with the party you
favored -
No: with tho opposition"
He was excused.
har"s Gras-c. n boss plumber OF 324 SEQ
oud avenue. bad Il slight impression Of the
case hut said 1t would not Interfere with his
giving u fair verdict CC!. Fellows then asked:
If you found IN" Gcf"nlants guilty OF hay
ing secured a fraudulent divorce you would
have 10 hesitation III saylEg 50 :"
" NO. sir
Then followed the question quoted anova re-
fcrrinE to Mrs. fluck, nut it was withdrawn
unausWe! ei. TITO Juror WAS accepted and
sworn in thus leaving only Uro seat III tho box
vacant. Before adlournn.:. however. Mr.. Eiid
arose and stated thar tho iOrcman. George l..
lie rick. was employed byH firm the partners
Of which were his intimate friends. lie WAS
afraid tho connection might be embarrassing
10 both the Juror and hlmsel. Judge Barrett
said that the yltOr mad already explained his.
cus"d. and the fOreman's seat became empty.
Charles F,sdick foreman Of the Grand Jury
that indicted the defendants. was in court dur
ing thu afternoon. When Adjournment was
rcachet tho dotCncn had used al it7 / aremu-
tory challenges Uut one. and tho prosecution
had only tw" LEFT. Tho second Panel Uf jurors
had also been nearly rNl a JE' cd.
Mrs. Elack dlln I leave l"r room Yesterday.
and her only visitor va Mrs bingham. She
is improved both in health and appetite.