The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-12-17


where the first explosion occurred.
Brown and Smith had no idea as 10
which company was liable, or IN which
warehouse the first explosion occurred.
They did not know any one who was
injured in the explosion. Dillon and
Hart had some friends who were In
jured in the explosion, but that fact.
they said, would not influence their
verdict. They had no idea where the
first or second explosion came from;
neither did Mr.. Hart Mr.. Binder was
acquainted with some of the men In
jured, but was uninfiuenced thereby.
Mr.. Hanley had also known some who
were hurt, so had Mr. Farlin, but they
said they would not be Influenced by
that fact. Richardson and Abbott were
not acquainted with any of the injured.
and none of the jurors had any opinion
as to where the different explosions
came from.
The plaintiffs, on the first peremptory
challenge, excused Samuel Binder and
A. w. Barnard, a real estate man. was
called. Mr.. Barnard was a member of
the grand jury that investigated the
explosion, but failed to find cause for
an indictment. Mr. Barnard said he
had formed an opinion. from what he
learned during the grand jury investi-
cation, as to the liability of the de-
PENDANT company. and he was excused.
r. NJ. Campbell, a carpenter. was the
next man called. but he said he was "A
witness in the case and was therefore
excused.
william M. Birthright, a colored cook,
was called and passed, and James
Brown was excused on the Defendants
| first peremptory challenge.
Charles Z. Murphy, a saloon-keeper.
| was the next man called into the jury
box and examined for cause. He said
he was in his saloon on South Main
street at the time of the explosion. He
visited the scene of the explosion rev
hours after IL occurred, and formed n
positive opinion as to the amounta or
powder that exploded, which was cause
| for his excuse from the jury. u ~
Andrew Monral, civil engineer. the
next man summoned, said he visited
| the scene of the explosion about u
o'clock that night, but he had formed
| no opinion as to the probable amount
| of powder that exploded. though had
| guessed at it. Mr.. Monroe said he
| thought he had expressed an opinion as
| to the liability of the company. but,
| Notwithstanding that, he could sit on
| the case and try 1t fairly and Impair
/ TALLY according to the law. and -evf-
| dence. In answer to questions from
| Mr. Forbis, the juror said he knew
/ Goddard before he was killed, but that
/ fact would not influence him in arTtv-
| ing at a verdict. He also said he did
not have an opinion as to where the
| first or second explosion occurred, or
| as to the liability of any particular
| company or person. Mr.. Monroe was
| passed and j. j. Hart was excused on
the plaintiffs second peremptory chai-
| lenge.
the Butte Reduction works, was the
next Juror called. He said he was
| asleep at the time of the explosion ana
thought he was awakened by IL, put
was not sure. He didn't read the pa
pers and had no opinion, and was
| hot cir - Ct 1
John Hanley was challenged peremp-
torily by the defense and S. johnson
took his place. Johnson said he was
smelterman working for the Nj. D. Il
company. He heard the explosion, and
visited the scene the same night, but
he had not formed or ektressedi.a P
| opinion as to the amount OF powder
that exploded or as to the liability OF
the defendant company. He said he
| has some friends who were killed or
injured in the explosion but that would
not influence him. ~ rt 1
The plaintiffs on their third peremp-
tory challenge excused William Rich
ardson, and Robert Skillicorn. a. miner
employed in the Parrot mine, was
called to take his place He had nc
| opinion as to the amount of powder,
, where the fire started, where the diff
ferent explosions occurred, or as to the
. liability of the defendant. He was
| DOWN IN the mime dl tie tllilC VI Ahie
explosion and did not hear it. hs
! The defense waived its third perempr
|, tory challenge and the plaintiffs or
, their last challenge excused Peter a
, Smith, the man who did not know
whether IL was an engine or powder
> that exploded. Ed Matthews, leaser
! was called in Smiths place, and sai6
he had read everything in the, papers
| concerning the explosion, but hac
. | formed no opinion as to the amount OF
3 powder that exploded, but had had ar
| opinion as to the liability of some one
1 | He could, however try the case fairly
e and impartially on the law and the evi
a dence and was passed for cause, tu
t was excused by the defense on At.
: fourth and last peremptory challenge
: +. II. Symons. a contractor. residint
e in Meaderville, was called and said h,
: visited the scene of the explosion abou
two hours after the explosion and saw
, the wreck but formed or expressed M
l opinions. Symons said he lived In BUTT
e Is years and did not know either Ken
yon, Connell, Palmer. Gaylord Of
Johnston. The jury was completed jus
! before time for adjourning court for TIL
: | day and is made up as follows;, Georg'
W. Farlin, w. II. Abbott, Charles
, Hammer. Patrick Dillon, Alfred Balm
forth, f. ]. Bretherton, Charles Skag
land, w. M Birthright, S. Johnson, +
III. Symons Andrew Monroe and Rob
: | ert Skillicorn. #lfEs1z
There are on the jury nine expert
= | enced miners, one civil engineer an,
!, | two general contractors. After tn
r jury was sworn Judge Mediation or
n dered the sheriff to take charge of then
: and not permit them to separate unit
o a verdict is reached. The judge ad
!. monished the jurors not to discuss tn
). | testimony until the case is finally sub
a mitted to them and warned them not Z
L talk TO any one about the case and no
e to receive communications from anyop
q without the permission of the court
d He sand they were kept together o
i as to assure, IL possible. a determine
ton of the case on the evidence an