The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-01-04
lAMUSING TALESMEN.
THEY SOMETIMES SAY THINGS WHICH
ARE VERY FUNNY.

ofNewspapers-Thc Barber Long Looked
For--Talesraen who Dldn't Know Public
:. Men and Places.
, In the New York courts ignorance and
stupidity occasionally appear to be the
characteristics chiefly sought after among
Jurors. The examination of talesmen,
especially In murder cases, Is usually ex-
ceedingly tedious, but at times flashes OF
wit or instances Of brilliant dullness illu-
mine the proceedings. Even men who in
the ordinary affairs of life show great in
telligence sometimes become confused
when being examined by two shrewd law
yers and judge in n crowded courtroom.
il their answers were aftcrward read to
them by the stenographer, they would ac-
cuse him of the grossest incompetence.
Certain stupid answers are given again
and again. At regular intervals crops mp
the man who says that hc would take the
evidence from the law. or the law from
ehe evidence, or the evidence from the
SQUIRT, or the evidence from the prisoners
counsel. Here is "A variation Of that form
of genial misinformation,
"How would you determine the case II
selected" asked a lawyer In general ses-
siens.
~ would take the law from the cvi-
dence, and IL there was any reasonable
doubt l would render verdict" This
seemed clear and straightforward enough,
but the man was excused.
"Would you take the law from the
court or would you settle it for your
self" Recorder Smyth asked n talesman.
"Oh, i would hear what the courI had
to say, and then would make up my
mind" came the answer coolly and al
most patronizingly.
The spectators thought that the rash
man would be committed to the Tombs
for contempt of court, but the recorder,
the lines of his face growing tense. calmly
asked. after pause:
"What did you say your business wasi"
"Cloakmaking."
"Well, you would better 90 and attend
to it far the rest OF the term" That was
all.
Some Jurors have n delightful lack of
confidence in the trustworthiness OF news
paper reports. In murder trial every
man examined is asked IL he has read
about the case. Sometimes he answers in
this strain: Eyes, but never believe any
thing I read in the newspapers. place
n..sredence in newspaper reports" This
is generally said breezily. but the reply Is
"
overintellgence nor is that not uncom-
mon one, "What | read makes no impress
sion on me-"
There is mistaken idea that n man
who has read anything about crime can
not serve on the jury which tries the nc
cused man. The law distinctly says that
even II he has made up his mind on the
question OF guilt he may still make sat
isfactory juror under certain conditions.
The man need not even say be knows
that he would not be influenced by the
opinion, but merely that he believes he
would not be. There are dozens of cases
in which the courts have held juror TO
be competent even IL he had read about
the crime and had formed an opinion
which it would take evidence to remove,
provided that he agreed to decide only on
the evidence and regardless Of that former
impression.
At the same time, this principle Of law
ia TO large extent nullifed. because coun-
sci generally peremptorily challenges such
man. The judge, however. recognizes
that the best juror of all is often the man
who frankly acknowledges that he has
read all about the case and has formed an
opinion, but nevertheless can give an i'm
partial verdict on the evidence.
In trial in general sessions which at
tracted much attention the name of bar
ber was drawn from the wheel Of fortune
by the clerk. One of the questions asked
him was whether he had formed an opin-
ion about the prisoners guilt and ex-
pressed it to his customers.
~ had an opinion" was the answer,
"but l did not express IL in my shop. l
never express opinions in my shop" The
emphasis.
"Your honor, this is the barber for
whom we have all been looking" said the
lawyer for the defense, but the assistant
district attorney did not want such man
on the jury.
In the same trial one or two other tales
men showed lack of backbone that de-
prived them of seats in the jury box. One
man vacillated in his views like a wealth.
ervane. First he said he would take the
evidence from the court, then he said he
would take it under the courts ruling.
lie began by saying that he had preju-
dice-a very strong prejudice-against a
man charged with killing u woman-a
prejudice that could be removed only by
evidence that was overwhelmingly con-
vincing. a minute later he calmly said
TO the Judge: g
Il have no prejudice in this case.
know that man charged with crime Is
considered innocent until proved guilty"
In despair the Judge told him to get down
from the witness chair.
One talcsman in the Sharp doodle"
trial said he had never heard of Jacob
Sharp. There was also one. ut another
time, who d;2n't know who Chauncey NJ.
Depew was. In the trial of Carlyle w.
Harris. w. Trayers Jerome put this ques-
tion:
Are you acquainted with Ocean Grove
or Asbury ParkY"
"No. sir. Inever met either" was the
grave reply.
Another talesman in the same case was
asked the usual question. "Do you object
TO capital punishment"
"No. sir, not at ALL" The tones were
40 cheerful and the mans air so COM
placent that Mr.. jerome quickly asked.
"What did you say your business was"
I'm in the slaughtering business"
~. lei - sAln