The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-06-23

ing to the evidence. He was accepted
and was marked No 5.
Nelson Edge was the next called to be
challenged by Mr.. Vredenburgh. He
had formed and expressed an opinion
against the defendants; that they were
guilty; he had expressed this opinion
more than once: his opinion was formed
from published reports and conversa-
tions.
Il am cousin of DIR. Edge" said the
witness. ''and live in the same house with
him. He was grand juror at the pres
ent term.''
In reply to Mr.. Winfield he said:--I am
a man of strong prejudices, and the ac-
cused would have to make it very plain
that they were innocent before would
acquit them; the evidence would have to
be very clear and If any doubt existed
would cast it against the prisoners. He
was excused as juror.
H. H. Steele, the next juror called, said
in reply to Mr.. Vredenburgh, that his
health was not good but was fair to
middling."
The Court overruled this challenge to
health, and Mr.. Steele said he had served
on a struck jury within the year on
railroad case; he had not formed an
opinion regarding the guilt or innocence
Of the prisoners. The challenge was
overruled and Mr.. steele was made juror
No g.
The next juror taken from the box was
John Robertson, of Arlington, N. j. He
formerly lived at Atlantic street and had
lived in the county number of years.
He had not formed an opinion in the
case and was accepted. This made him
Juror No. z, but as soon as he took his
seat Mr.. Hudspeth challenged him per-
emptorily, and he was excused. Counsel
for the other defendants formally except
ed to this, but the Court refused to grant
the exceptions.
AGAINST THE RAscALs.
Edward A. Apgar next called, said he
had formed an opinion against the pris-
oners, and that he thought they should
be convicted. He read the evidence be-
tore the Senate Committee as published.
81 think it would require clear evidence
for me to acquit the defendants" said
he.
Answering Mr.. Winfield, he said he
had no feeling against the men, but the
deeds they had committed; he could not
say whether his prejudices would pre-
vent him from decideding the case ac-
cording to the evidence.
The Court tasked:-"Suppose there was
no evidence to convict the defendants
produced would you convict them?"
mo, sir; but | would be inclined to
convict them upon some evidence"
ssWhat was your expressed opinion
since summoned as juror" asked Mr..
Vredenburgh.
81 thought that if the parties were
guilty they should be punished"
81 am thoroughly convinced" said the
Court, that this witness is intelligent
enough to be a juror, but that he wishes
to escape jury duty"
81 can't help my prejudices, Judge. and
| don't believe | could honestly sit as
juror
isYou are excused said the Court
sharply.
Thomas, of Hoboken, who had not ex-
pressed any opinion but had formed q
strong bias against the prisoners. He
had read about the defendants and all
their evils in the newspapers He thought
he could not give verdict according to
evidence. He was excused from the jury.
Frank w. Cole was the next name
taken from the box. He has been living
at Ocean Beach, but his residence is in
this CITY, He had formed an opinion, and
arrived at the conclusion that The accused
were pretty hard cases and guilty; 1t
would be pretty hard work to convince
him that the defendants were innocent.
In answer to the Prosecutor, he said, he
thought it would be hard to render a YER
dict according to the evidence, If it
tended to acquit them.
Mr. Vreedenburgh chs Do you think you
could give the defendants an impartial
trial?"
II don't know, would try to do my
duty"
He was accepted, and made juror No. 4.
William SERB, OF Hoboken, was the
next to undergo an examination as to his
qualifications, and he said he had formed
an opinion of all the indicted election Off
GERS but not particularly against those in
court; his opinions were formed from
what he had read and heard, and in q
case of doubt at the trial it would take
strong evidence to induce him to acquit
By the Court:-"If you were sworn as a
juror, would you consider the case impair
tially?"
Yes, sir.'
He was accepted as juror No. s.
Garret Busch, called, said he was sixty
seven years old, and was excused By the
Court.
Philip Hexamer, of Hoboken, succeeded
years old, and had said he would have to
be governed according to the evidence
daughter at Mr.. Vredenburgh'S s expenSe).
Counsellor Black made peremptory
challenge and Mr.. Hexamer was excused.
The next was Nathan Condit. Jr., of
No. $40 YORK street, next called, said he
had not been summoned because his
subpoena did not have Jr. on It; that there
was a Nathan Condit, Sr. The court
overruled Mr.. Vredenburgh's objection
to him on this account, and he was per-
mitted to, be examined. He said he had
cAUE6SSbu I'LL Opl4lOu uHdI oOAlODOQy Acu
been guilty of something" He was ac-
cepted as juror No. 8.
THE LAST THREE.
Aaron Il. Baldwin was next brought to
the front. He asked to be excused be-
cause of ill health. BY consent of coun-
sci he was permitted to step aside until it
was seen whether the list of jurors would
be exhausted.
Then Frank P. Throckmorton followed.
He had also formed an opinion from read
ing which would be difficult to change
unless he obeyed the instructions of the
court; he did not then feel impartial but
thought he could do his duty.
"You would it do, wouldn't you?n asked
Mr.. Winfield.
II positively would
What do you think ought to be done
in this case?n Asked Mr.. Vreedenburgh
Il think some one is guilty and should
BY the court:-"Could you decide i'm
partially?"
Eyes SIR"
''You will be accepted" said Judge
LippincoT He made juror No. 10.
Charles F. Staples thought he could
impartially try the case as juror.
Counsellor Bowly made peremptory
challenge, which was overruled by the
Court, the defence having had three al
ready, all they were entitled to. He was
accepted as Juror No. IL.
The next called was George H. Carrick,
who had SIX months ago served on d