Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-12-04
TIE OLSON TRIAL.


1t having become publicly known
that the csse Of Amanda Ol,on.
charged with the murder Of Fnnt
Hall, in the Eighteenth Ward Of
this city, on the 2sth of September
last, had been fixed for TODAY. the
Third District Court room was
crowded with spectators by ten
O'Clock, the hour of opening. upon
Judge Zane taxing his seat, District
Attorney Varian intimatsd that he
feared 1t would not be possible for
him to take up the case before Sat.
urday morning.
Judge Zane But I understood
That 1t was set down for this morn.
nag certainly so arranged II. and
shall not keep the Jury after this
week to Try cases where the prison.
efs are out on bail.
In answer to his honor. JUDGE
Powers said he expected that the
Olson case wouli occupy two or
three days. 1t was probable tb.t
some time would be Consumed in
the enl2aneiing of a jury to try the
case.
After some further conversation
the Judge directed that the KuntZ
poisoning case (partIy heard yester-
uay siouid be resumed forthwith.
anu that the Olson matter must 1
come on upon its conclusion.
IL was ll:2o when the latter case
vas called. and Miss Olson. who was
accompanied In court by her parents
a. once took a seat by the side Of
Juuge Powers, her attorney. her
mother sitting close behind. The
accused was a;tired in deep mourn
ing ani also heavily yelled, so that
her features were not at all visible.
Inc empanellng of a jury was
ms. proceeded with, the following
answering to their names
anu taxing their seats in the jury
Charles Ellison, James Asbn,an
Z: l.. White, F. A. Pascoe, Edward
Pickering, J. NJ. Cahoon, Walter
William Roberts, Peter
Ericsson, Joseph Irving, William
L. Reed, j. B. Meredith.
Each juror was questioned bv
Judge Powers az TO whether he had
read or heatd OF the case until this
ime, whether he had already
ofmed decided opinion upon il.
md whether he could, If sworn. sit
Ind Try the case impartially. All
Jut Dir. Meredith replied that they 7
we're prepared TO listen without {
prejudice to the evidence forthcom-
ng on both sides, and to give n 0
conscientious and impartial verdict 0
Neither OF the jurors was opposed,
to bias, 10 the defense of =
insanity. " q
Mr. Meredith said, if the court ?
LEASED. he would state his reasons u
Or thinking why he should not act u
a juror; but Judge Powers re.
iarSed that he had bs.ter not do SO a
ow. d
Judge Powers challenged Mr.. 6
'ascOe for cause. L
District Attorney Varian then in N
.rroEsted the jury according TO the
sIai preliminary form: and at this e.
incture the point was raised Inv q
Judge Powers rs to whether or mi oi
lie wording of the Indictment could y
: construed as charging murder in -
ie mrs. degree. Judge Powers in al
sted, also, that the facts in the case "a
no element whatever &c
nalng to show murder in the first 10
-gree. There was nothing to ipdi- Us
lie reconciliation or malice arore- 81
fought.
District Attorney Varian, in an
yer, quoted copiousIy from the
atutes and rulings bearing on the
sc, contending that tine charge Is
as cue Of murder in the first de-
'ee.
juige Zane, referring to the point
issue, remarked that in this In.
etment was employed the lam CT
iase, ''feloniously," anu "witb he
alice aforethought-" 1t would III.
seen that the words "wilfilI., ), "a
deliberate, : and ''premeditated, - a..
ere omitted. The question there bel
re was whether the two sets of to
rms mentioned in the statute were ha,
y equivalent. Malice alore.
ought, in its common acceptation, no
cant. OF course. that a person had ta'
ought over the act of killing be. Sci
70 carrying it into effect. He was pri
opinion that ''Iualice afore
ought. was substantially equiva. %
u 10 the terms "wilful,'' s'de,ib. VI
ate,' and 'premeditated,v ami an
az person might, on such an ms
iictnen., be convicted of murder -;
the first degree. oel
The task of empaneling a jury -
med likely to occupy the greater eii
1t OF the afternoon. 81