The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-13

amid renewed objections of the defense, Mr..
Brown was allowed to step down and out Of
the case. In the second place his Honor de-
cided TO take no action for the present on the
application OF General Dickinson for citations
against certain newspaper men. He held that
at this time it would interfere with the case
and decided to hold the matter in allegiance
until such period as it could be taken UP
properly.
These matters being out of the way the
search for jurors was resumed. Thirty-odd
veniremen were examined during the day, but
not one additional juryman was secured. The
effort will be continued to-day, but it is hardly
likely that Judge Murphy will preside. He
was very much iudisposed and notified Clerk
Morris if he did not appear on time this morn
ing TO request one of the other Judges to otfici-
ate in his stead. The indisposition is not seri-
GUS and his Honor hopes to be on the bench
after one days rest
The courtroom was crowded during the day,
many ladies being present, but everybody
seemed to pay more attention to the proceed
ings than TO the prisoner. The young woman
with the yearning to present pea blossoms TO
the accused was on hand early in the morning.
but when Deputy Sheriff Martin Hughes asked
her name she made her escape from the court
room only to haunt the corridors, where she
was closely watched by one of Captain Lees
IL
remainder of the day.
NOTE TO THE READER.-If you wish only to
know what was actually accomplished in the
Durrant case yesterday the foregoing summary
will give you that information. If, however,
It your desire to learn the particulars of this
interesting trial you will find subjoined clear,
succinct, impartial account OF all important
matters. Under no circumstances will the
offensive details be admitted. They are not
essential to an intelligent understanding of
the progress of the case, and will be accorded
no place in these columns.
Judge Murphy was plainly indisposed as
he took his seat on the bench in the Dur
rant case yesterday morning. He coughed
violently his nose was uncomfortably
blue, and his overcoat was buttoned tight
ly under his chin. Juror Horace Smyth's
undisguised passion for fresh air had made
its mark on his Honor. His bronchial
tubes were clogged and his head was filled
with villainous cold. For which reasons
nobody wondered when he vigorously
shook his head when the bailiff asked him
if he should raise the window. The jurors
passion for morning breezes had run coun-
ter once too often to the judicial tendency
to colds and the passion was compelled to
knock under to the tendency.
The usual crowds were in attendance,
and everybody was on the qui viye to learn
what conclusions his Honor had arrived at
in the case of Juror Walter S. Brown
against whom the District Attorney had
asked leave to interpose peremptory
challenge. They had not long to wait.
His Honor took up the matter as soon as
the jurors had answered to their names.
He said:
When the court took g. session Friday last a
motion made by the District Attorney was
pending to be permitted to exercise peremp-
tory challenge to one of the jurors sworn in
the case The facts upon which that motion
was based are substantially that the said juror,
Brown, after an examination as to his COM
petency and qualifications TO serve as juror
IN thls case, was accepted by both parties and
sworn IN as juror to try said action, being
me NTH Juror SO sworn to try the case. There
are now nine jurors accepted and sworn to try
said cause.
AT this time, and the status of the iury being
as above, and the Jury not being complcted
sthe District Attorney now asks the court per-
mission TO now interpose peremptory chal-
'lenge 70 20 salu Juror Brown, on the ground that
since ms acceptance OF said Brown as Juror,
and since said Brown was sworn as such. GER
tain information has reached him and certain
occurrences have happened that had he been
aware of their existence at the time Of mis- ex-
animation of Brown to his qualifications,
ETC., he would not have cepted the said
juror, but would, on the contrary, have inter
posed peremptory challenge to him.
To the granting OF this motion of the Dis
trict Attorney the defendant objects.
When this motion was made by the District
Attorney the counsel for the defendant earn
estly objected 10 the court allowing the Dis
trict Attorney to fnterrogate the juror or hear
ing any oral evidence in the matter not based
upon affidsyits filed. This objection cannot be
entertained for the reason that the course of
procedure pursued in this case follows that in
the case of the People, etc., vs. Bemmerfy. 81
Cal, III. In that case the juror, Horr, had