The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-07-27

on the ground tnat IL ola not go TO the
competency of the juror. The objection
was argued at length. and finally overruled
by the court. Further questions were then
put by Mr.. Deuprey. which showed that
the Juror had an opinion based on reading
the testimony given at the Coroners in
quest, which testimony he believed to be
true. He was challenged for implied and
actual bias, and the challenge was allowed
by Judge Murphy, who held that If the
testimony was correctly reported and the
Juror took it as true, there was no other
course open than to excuse him, which he
did.
The court then ordered recess until 2
o'clock
Upon the reconvening of court Frank
Edward Booth. late of $40 Fillmore street,
was called upon an attachment for failure
to respond to his name when called at the
morning session. He explained to the
court that he had within the past three
months removed his residence to Oakland.
This he had explained to the deputy who
summoned him to appear for jury duty.
The excuse was sufficient to excuse Mr..
Booth from punishment for contempt, but
the matter of his qualification for jury
duty not then being under consideration,
he was required to remain in attendance
upon the court.
The examination of the six remaining
talesmen in the box was then resumed.
Charles II. Clark, 1874 Suffer street, ex
amined by District Attorney Barnes as to
his qualification to sit as juror, testified
that he was a retired merchant and a man
OF family. He had been resident OF San
francisco for six years. he was not a
member of Emmanuel Baptist Church, and
had no acquaintance with Defendant Dur
rant nor parties connected with the case.
Under certain circumstances, Mr.. Clar
said, he had conscientious scruples against
the infliction of the death penalty. The
circumstantial evidence that would recon-
Gle his conscience would have to be very
strong and most positive.
Have you any objection to circumstan-
tlal evidence as evidence :" asked Mr..
Barnes.
Eyes" answered the talesman, but he
would weigh such evidence as he would
other evidence, and would not disregard
! it simply because it was circumstantlal evil
dence. He had read the newspaper &C
counts of the preliminary trials, which ne
believed to be true reports, and had
formed, not positive opinion, but an I'M
preston, sucn as would to q certain extent
influence him as juror, and would require
evidence to remove. He felt he could not
act fairly and impartially as juror
The court allowed the challenge Tor
cause by the State.
William NJ. Elliott, publisher, 1909 Polk
street. had been a resident OF san Fran
cisco for twenty years; he had no objection
to circumstantial evidence as evidence,
and would consider it as he would any
other evidence: and. if he was satisfied of
the guilt of the defendant as established
upon circumstantial evidence, and the pen
atty was death, he would be willing to
| join in verdict of guilty. he was not ac-
quainted with the defendant or any OF de-
fendant's family.
| On being Intercepted by Mr.. Deuprey
/ for. the defense, Mr.. Elliott stated that he
had read the testimony taken at the COR,
oner's inquest and the preliminary trial
and had discussed the case. Upon that
reading and discussion he had formed an
opinion and still retained 1t, and 1t
would require pretty strong evidence 10
remove it.
Counsel for the defense challenged the
talesman for cause based on subdivisions
and 2, section l073 Penal Code, and the
court allowed the challenge.
John Lynch. porter, residing at Is Will
low avenue, testified that he had no con-
scientious scruples against lnfilcting the
F., death penalty and would consider circum-
stantlal evidence as he would any other
evidence, and would be willing to join in
verdict of guilty established by circum-
stantlal evidence, not permitting sympathy
or compassion to sway him. But, IN an
sMer W questions Dy ueleHudnt CouHoei,
Mr.. Lynch declared that he had formed
an opinion from reading the newspapers
that could be removed only by very strong
evidence. He was excused on the chal-
lenge OF the defense for cause.
William Schwarke, wine merchant, re-
siding at 769 Jones street, a native of Ger
many, had been resident in San Fran
cisco for twenty years and had no scruples
as to capital punishment and no prejudice
against circumstantial evidence, but had
formed an opinion from reading and dis