The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1890-11-17

read the newspaper reports Of election
frauds"
Mr.. Daily then said:-"we challenge
peremptoriIy in behalf OF Mr.. Burns"
The witness is excused for all the de-
PENDANTS" said the Court.
I'VE ask for an exception on the ground
that all the defendants have individual
rights OF challenge" said ex-Judge Gar
retson.
NO. 8.
william Underwood, or NO. ls2 sip
avenue, next called. said he had formed
an opinion in connection with the cases
OF election frauds; he was unDrejudiced
against the defendants in this trial; he
could render an impartial verdict.
The Court overruled the challenge and
Nh. Underwood became Juror No. 3.
James +. Banks, OF No. IS Van Reipeu
avenue, called q challenged by Counsel
Tor V~redenburgh, said he had read In the
papers of the trial Of certain persons for
election frauds; he read of the Senate In
v~estigation; he formed an opinion SO far
as newspaper reports were concerned.
What was that ~opinioniv
Il object" said the Prosecutor, and a
wrangie followed.
The Court overruled the question.
Did you form any opinion of the guilt
or innocence of the defendants now on
trial from your readingi" asked MI. Vre-
denburgh.
II formed a general impression that
they were guilty; | have not had any oc-
caslon to change my opinion and am of
the same opinion now; l do not know the
three defendants"
could give a verdict according to the evil
dence."
''The challenge is not sustained" said
the Court, n Mr.. Banks took a seat as
Juror No. 4.
Samuel c. Allison, of Montgomery
street, called next. was formally chal-
lenged. He said he had not paid any par
ticular attention to the newspaper re-
ports of the election frauds, but knew
that frauds had taken place;
had read that these defendants were
indicted; from what he read he did form
some opinion; his opinion had not
changed; his opinion referred to those
men who stuffed the ballot boxes.
"How do you know the ballot boxes
were stuffedf" asked the Court.
II only know what l read"
And" said the Court, from thai you
formed the opinion that these three de-
PENDANTS stuffed the boxes.n
"Oh, no, not these three men, but that
some one had"
Ibid you form an opinion as to the
guilt or innocence of these defendantss'
mo, sir, not these men,"
Cross examined:-"I could give a YER
dict according to the evidence"
1.-THE challenge is not sustained said
The Court, and Mr. Allison became Juror
No. 5.
HIN THEY HAVE A WEAK CASE.
George Medoe, of No. 48 Mercer ave-
nue., next called, went through the same
course of challenge and said he had not
formed any opinion from reading news
paper reports of the frauds, for life was
too short to bother with the matter. He
added ne never formed any opinion Until
he came into court, and then he con
oluded:-"The defendants have an
Internally Weak case or they would not
inferpose 80 many objections to trifes.O
Counsellor Black hen peremptorily
challenged Medoe for defendant Meskill,
and he was excused.
Counsellor for the purpose of an excep-
ton, objected to the challenge being cred
ted to all the defendants.
Elliott L. Butler, called and challenged.
said he had read of the frauds oil had not
formed any opinion, and had read
the Senate Investigations; had read some
election officers had been indicted; did
not know the defendants had been In
dicted; did not know what case he was
summoned to act as a juror in; had not
formed any opinion as to the guilt or in
nocence of the defendants. The Juror
was peremptorily challenged on behalf
OF Cassidy. but the Court granted it for
all the defendants.
"This exhausts the peremptory chal-
- 0N@cAAutAtcs DdAQ blt
Prosecutor.
Counsellor DAILY renewed his motion
for a separate trial for Burns and the
Court overruled 1t.
Ezekiel NJ. Thorp, of No. GIG Pavonia
avenue, next called, challenged, said he
could render an impartial verdict in the
present case n the juror was accepted.
Counsellor Daily then. on behalf of all
the defendants, challenged peremptorily.
Prosecutor Winfield objected, and Mr..
Daily said he bad exhausted the peremp-
tory challenges for Burns, but he claimed
that those challenges did not affect all.
The Court oyerruled him, ana Mr..
Thorp became Juror No. 6.
THE JURY BOX FILLED.
Louis b. Heuchler, called and cballeged, /
said he was convinced that frauds had
been committed, but by whom he did not
know; he could act as an impartial juror.
The juror was accepted and the for
was gone through with by Counsellor
Hudspeth OF behalf of Meskiil, and then
the defendants. TO obtain an excep- |
tion.
Mr.. Heuchler made Juror No. 4.
J. b. 4. Meyer. of Hoboken. called and
challenged, said he had formed the opin-
ion that II the defendants were guilty
they should be punished; he could act as
au impartial juror. The juror was accept |
ed as Juror No. s.
Edward Linn was called. He was abb
sent n excused by consent, and then
Charles Van Anglen, of No. PA Wash |
ington street. was called. He was chal-
lenged generally, mi then said he had
not expressed any opinion as to the guilt
of these defendants. he believed frauds |
had been committed in their precinct and
that he was slightly BIASED, but he be- |
lieyed he could form a just Judgment.
Mr.. Van Anglen was accepted as juror
No. o.
Edward P. q. Lewis was next called. |
The Court had q certificate from a
physician that he was sick and excused
him.
The next called was Henry +. FRANKIE,
of Hoboken, druggist. He had not read
anything about the election frauds aud
knew nothing about them; had heard
people talk about the frauds. He was ac-
as juror No. 10.
Henry Schinzel called and excused for
on certificate Of doctor.
Michael Murray, Of No. 341 York street, |
the next to answer, was, as usual, chal-
He had read of the election
but had not formed any opinion
of the guilt OF the defendants. He was
accepted and became juror No. IL.
John Hedden, Jr, of Magnolia avenue,
was called and challenged on the ground
he had served within a year.
said he served several
weeks ago in q railroad case. He was
challenged in that case. He felt compe-
tent TO act as an impartial Juror and