Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1891-05-07

ing the death penalty. 81 was sum-
moued on the jury this morning"
Q.-Are you acquainted with the de-
ceased or the defendant?
objection and Overruled.
Al know DR.. Garrison when L see
him. | never saw DR.. Baird.
He was accepted, and the number OF
Jurors was completed, it being then
1925 o'clock. At the suggestion OF
Captain Dovener, however, it was
agreed to go on and examine few more
jurors, so that if any already accepted
should hereafter become disqualified,
they would have some one to fall BACK
on.
J. Nichols had an opinion, as had
Frank 7. Kennamond, and both were
excused. C. w. McGee also had an
opinion and was excused. L. K. NC
Culloch was prejudiced. John Frazier
had no prejudice, nor had be formed or
expressed an opinion. 81 think couio
be governed by the evidence; it's very
hard question to decide. The extent OF
my opinion is, that the act has been
committed, but l do not know how l
could form an opinion as TO the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Still, don't
think l could decide it according to
law" Excused.
James Nichols had an opinion, but
had never expressed it. He was ex-
cuSed.
This exhausted the list, and the
Sheriff announced that another panel
wonld be forthcoming this morning, II
neCeS Sary.
The Judge cautioned the jurors Sc
lected not to talk about the case, etc.
THE QUESTION OF AGE.
CAPTAIN Dovener then addressed the
Court, and said that no man over sixty
years of age had any more right to serve
than man under twenty-one, and he
asked that the Court consider 1T. lie
cited Chap. 116, Secs. and >, and asked
the Judge to ponder over it until this
morning.
The Court-Are there any members
of the jury who are over sixty?
Capt. Dovener-YeS, two of them; one
over sixty and one over seventy.
Col. Arnett-Well, l suppose we can
consider that in the morning.
The Court-Why not to-day? We
have more time than we will have to-
morrow.
The question is new one in this
| Court, il not having been heretofore
raised, and when Captain Dovener aroSe
and maintained that man over sixty
years of age was no more qualified than
one nineteen years of age, it opened up
matter of considerable interest.
Col. Arnett said he had no question,
| but it was purely and simply matter
of privilege, and said he had seen 1t
raised and disposed Of often In the
course of his practice. He was satisfied
| that would be the result here.
! The State, on the other hand, main
tanned the statute was plain, and that 1t
was the duty of the Court to see that a
statutory Jury went into the box. Sec
ton l OF the Statutes presented these
qualifications for juror: He must be a
male, over twenty-one years OF age, ana
under sixty years. The exceptions
were in the next section, and they might
be waived.
The Court agreed to hear the argu-
ment this morning, and Court was ad-
| journed until $3.50, when jurors, sum-
moned but not yet called, will be re-
| Quired to report,
After the adjournment the attorneys
in ard about the court room engaged in
a quiet and earnest discussion OF the
point raised by the State, and it was un-
hesitatingly answered by several that
the point was well-taken. If backed by
the decision of tho Court, it will dis
qualify Jurors Bell, Billiard, Starks,
and perhaps one other.
''Sec. 1 of Chap. 116, is as follows;
SEC /. All male persons who are twenty-one
/ wears of age, and not over sixty, and who are
citizens OF this State shall be liable to serve as
/ Jurors, except as hereinafter provided"