The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-06-23
guilt or innocence Of the accuseds'' Mr..
Vredeuherrh asked.

guilt or innocence Of the accusedT' MIR.
Vredenbergh asked.
Eyes, SIR"
Expressed its"
Eyes, sir"
"More than once?"
whenever opportunity offered"
HAS any bias been created in your
mind?n
II have only read one side so far"
Has it created biasa
"No, sir, it has not"
''Do you think you could render a YER
dict in accordance with the evidenceY'
"YeS, SIR
Hulshizer and he took his seat in the jury
box Unless he be peremprorily chal-
lenged later on he will be the foreman OF
the jury.
JUROR NO. 2.
Charles f. Case, next called, said he
He was challenged by the defense. 1t was
the case of Coyle VS.. the Pennsylvania
railroad that he acted in as juror.
Mr.. vredenburg Have you formed
any opinionp
81 have"
"Haye you expressed it?"
81 have, more than once"
ssHave you formed bias?"
''My bias would be against the prison
ers if they have done as is charged"
I'VE insist on our challenge said Mr..
Vredenburgh He then read the statute
on challenges, which stated that any juror
having served on jury during the three
preceding terms would be a good cause
for challenge.
The Court:-"What court was it in that
he served?"
1T was before Judge Knapp" said the
witness
Mr.. Winfield Case, do you feel
80 ! Il
a verdict according to the evidenceY
The Court:-"H Have you any malice
against any of the prisoners?n
Il have not
"Do you belong to the Committee of
Fifty?" asked Nj. Vredenburgh.
II do not and have not attended any Of
the meetings"
THE CHALLENGE QUESTION.
Mr.. Garretson said:-"I challenge for
Mr. Moschell'
Mr.. Winfield: ST submit to the Court;
they can't challenge for one defendant !,
but must for all the defendants in thi s
case"
Ex-Judge Garretson then said, "One
challenge is for Moschell, and it has been
the practice that each defendant has a
right to challenge in his behalf"
The Court:-''We had better settle this
question at once, and have one ruling
that will govern all the challenges"
uukO 0elICboOA CldlulC0 tutlt CdLA
defendant had an equal number of per-
emptory challenges; the struck jury act
provided that three peremptory chal-
lenges shall be allowed the defendants
each, but he claimed that the three other
defendants should not be bound by the
challenge Of one, for the others may
have other reasons for challenging.
Mr.. Winfield admitted that the prac-
tlce had been that each defendant should
have separate challenges; but the ques-
tion concerning challenges recently
raised by the press has caused him to
make a careful research of the law
governing challenges in struck juries,
the results of which he had reduced to
writing The opinion he then read
covered cases going back to the early
days of Edward III. He launched into a
long technical argument to show that the
defendants are all entitled collectively to
but three peremptory challenges.
The Court said it had given the ques-
tion some attention, and it had no doubt
the defendants were not Untitled to more
than three challenges together, and that
would be it's ruling. The challenge of
one is for all the defendants. The Court
said further that it would not recognize
different counsel in the challenges, but
for that purpose each counsel spoke for
all.
Ex-Judge Garretson took an exception.
Then Lawyer Boly made formal chal-
lenge on behalf OF De Rancy for the pur-
pose of taking an exception and Counsel
lor Black did the same for Hart.
The Court said it had ruled on the case
and the one exception was for all.
Mr. Hudspeth, for Fallon, made the
same exception, but the Court made the
Ex-Jndge Garretsoh said to the Court:
'I don't exactly understand now just
where we stand" and the Court said
-, in, ,Ixrf fhot ho q for
all, and added:-"Mr. Case is excused as
a juror"
does not make peremptory challenge as
to Mr.. Case"
The Court refused to listen further, and
said counsel must unite in The chal-
lenges.
half of Mr.. Fallon."
"The court overrules it. That is mat
ter purely within the courts discretion. !"
HAD A PREJUDICE.
John Gardner, of No. Al Columbia
street, Union Hill, was then called as
juror, and Mr.. Vredenburgh put him
through the same list of questions. Mr..
Gardner said he had partly formed an
opinion in the case, bat that his bias
wonld not prevent him giving a verdlcu
according to the evidence, but he would
need the evidence to change his mind.
Oh1CS5 UhC dSlChdditVo PlOaoeON ONtNtOASS
that they were innocent, he would
convict them. daughter in court)l
He told the court he had formed his
opinion from what he had read and
heard. 81 think Iwould do what is right
according to the evidence" said he. He
was excused from serving on the ground
that he did not know what he was talk
ing about.
Charles Klupfel, who lives in Hoboken
was the next juror called and challenged
by the defence. Mr.. Vredenburgh asked
him if he had served as a juror and he
replied he had been Grand Juror last
term, but had not been petit juror
have not read anything about the
case, and have had no evidence to cause
me to form bias, but / have a prejudice;
it would take evidence to overcome it. l
can decide this case according to the evil
dence."
The Court overruled the challenge and
he was accepted as juror No. 2.
NOS. 3 AND A.
Garwood Ferris, next called. said he
lived at No. 500 Montgomery street. In
answer to Counsellor Vredenburgh ne
said he had formed decided opinion as
to the acts, and had served as struck
Juror in the April term, in the case of
Coyle vs.. the Pennsy lvan1a Railroad. He
had served as juror in the United States
Court.
BY Mr. Vredenburgh:-"Are you a
member of the Committee of Fiftyf''
81 am member of the Committee of
One Hundred" Uaughter.)