The San Francisco call., 1895-07-30
SEARCH FOR JURORS IN THE. .DURRANT CASE.

ScrupleS against the 1nnlct10n OF the death |
penalty, and he was prepared, if sworn as
juror, to give 1T full consideration. Mr..
Topping was excused later. however, on
the fact developing that he had formed
such an opinion as would render it impos-
sible for him to make an impartial juror.
Bernard Lucke, shoe-dealer, residing at
1882 Golden Gate avenue, was challenged
by the prosecution and excused for the
reason, as he stated it, that under no Cir
cumstances would he join in a verdict
against the defendant which would mean
the intiiction of the death penalty.
George GreenSwelg, who resides at 1922
California street, stated that while he had
no CONSCIENTIOUS scruples against the in
fiction of the death penalty, he would un-
der no circumstances convict upon circum-
stantlal evidence. He was challenged by
the prosecution for this reason and the
challenge was allowed. Henry H. Finch,
an insurance clerk, residing at 1431 jack
son street, had no scruples against circum
stantlal evidence, and was prepared to rem
der verdict on that kind of evidence. He
was unacqualnted with the Durrant FAM
lily and knew none of the attorneys or de-
tectlves for the defense. His answers were
satisfactory to the prosecution, and he was
passed by the District Attorney. Cross
examined by Mr.. Deuprey, he stated that
he mad practlced law, and had paid some
attention to the study of cases of circum-
that 1t must be taken with a great deal of
caution. He stated that he also recognized
that testimony in regard to Identification
is subject often to very great mistakes, and
should be taken with very great caution.
1t looked very much after few more
questions as if Mr.. Finch had all the quail
ltications for a good Juror and would be
passed without challenge. This hope was
blasted, however, when he stated that he
had read much about the case and had
formed an opinion, which only the strong
est kind of evidence could remove. Upon
this he was challenged for cause, and the
challenge was allowed.
Oscar r. Jones, stockbroker, 800 Pine
street. had no conscientious scruples as to
the lntilction of the death penalty, but
stated that he would not convict on cir
cumstantial evidence. W. E. Rippon of
S25 Haight street was challenged and ex-
cused for the same reasons.
William Fahey, hotel-keeper at Fifth
and Mission streets, was passed by the
prosecution and challenged by the defense
on the ground that he had fixed opinion
on the case, which it would require strong
evidence to remove.
Ten other Jurors were called to the box
and duly sworn to answer. Charles Kos
| tering of 172S Folsom street, after good
deal of questioning. developed such a
strong opinion on the case that challenge
| Fred W. Butler, bookkeeper, residing
at 1881 McAilister street, seemed to possess
all the qualifications necessary for juror
until near the end of the cross-examina-
tion by Mr.. Deuprey. Then it developed
| that, even in matters of law, he would be
more inclined to follow his own opinion
| than that of the court He was sharply
questioned by Judge Murphy, and, still
clinging to the idea that he would be pretty
apt to rely on his own judgment, he was
excused on the challenge of the defense.
T. w. Moore of 14O4 Van Ness avenue ad-
mitted that he had formed an opinion on
the case so firm that only the strongest
kind of testimony could move him. He
was challenged by the State and the court
sustained the challenge.
Dietrich Holman, a grocer at Twenty
fourth and Church streets was excused on
the same ground as was also w. G. Stat
ford of 202 Broderick street.
Andrew Henneberry of 129 Ellis street
testified that he had no scruples against
the infiiction of the death penalty but was
unutterably opposed to a conviction on
lenged by the State and excused. Nathan
Bibo was of the same opinion, and he, too,
was challenged and excused.
James 7. Wiseman of the American Ex-
change Hotel, 319 Sansome street, would
not join IN a verdict on circumstantial
evidence where the consequences would be
death.
Lee H. Clayburg of 1104 McAllister street
developed such strong opinion as to re-
guire great deal of evidence to remove.
He also was challenged and excused.
Samuel Dannenbaum of 1907 Post street,
the twentieth man on the venire to be ex-
amined during the morning, had consci-
entious scruples against circumstantial
evidence. He was challenged by the State
and excused.
The two jurors sworn, Irwin J. Truman
and Thomas w. Seiberlich, were the only
ones left in the box when the court re-
ceived the amended affidavit of Durrant
on the application for injunction against
the management of 1.-THE Crime of the Gen.
tury," and he thereupon issued the follow
ing order:
In the Superior Court of the City and County
of San Francisco, State of California.
The People of the State of California VS.. W.
II. 7. Durrant.
Upon reading and fling the affidavit of said
defendant, made and filed herein, setting forth |
that w. r. Daley and r. G. White, their agents,
employees and other persons in their employ
and under their CONTROL have during the past |
few days and now are advertising by posters
and in the newspapers in the said City ana
County and by public exhibit of exhibit u
attached to said affidavit. certain play, called
'The Crime OF Century" and that they have
so advertised and intended to produce the said |
play at the Alcazar Theater on July %, 1895,
thereto; and it further appearing that said
play is founded upon and has been and is ad-
vertised to reproduce and represent in detail
the persons involved in the charge of murder !
upon which said affiant is now being tried in |
this court and the circumstances under which !
the same is presumed to have been committed;
and it further appearing that the advertising
and threatened production of the said play
interferes with the trial of the said cause in
this court and with the administration of
justice in the premises and is and will be an
unlawful interference with the proceedings of
this court.
1t is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the said w. R. Daley and r. G. White, |
their and each OF their agents, attorneys,
and employees, and any other person or per-
sons in their employ or under their control, do
forthwith desst and cease the further display
OF exhibit l" attached to said affidavit, and
do at once cease to advertise in any manner,
by display or otherwise, the said play, 'The
Crime of a Century" and they are furthef. for
hidden to produce the said play or any portion
thereof, or any play referring to the murder
for which the said defcndent is now on trial in
this court until the said trial shall have been
disposed of.
That copy OF this order and of the said affi-
davit be served forthwith upon the said Daley
and the said White
Done in open court this 29th day of July,
1885, d. 7. MURPHY. Judpe.