The San Francisco call., 1895-11-14

street work which was in no way in ac-
cordance with the specifications. The
case came before Judge Sanderson first,
and the plea of not guilty was entered dur
ing the latter days of October. Yesterday
the case opened for actual trial
BY the questions of the prosecutions at
torneys it would appear that the case will
have some SAVIOR OF politics. This Judge
Murphy says he will not allow He was
an arden Repu blican, he stated from the
bench yesterday, and he was not going to
allow a political case to be tried before
him. Nevertheless the question of poll
tics has entered even into the examination
of jurors.
From the questions of the defense it is
easy to gather that the defense will be the
division of responsibility. Mr.. Ashworth
will maintain that certain persons in his
employ were detailed to investigate the
manner in which the contracts were being
performed and upon their report that
everything was all right he accepted the
work. In consequence, he is not to blame,
and as none of his employees, even those
who investigated street work, are under
indictment, or are likely to be under in
dictment, the case is apt to be, as one
Juror expressed IL, "a waste of money for
no cause"
Maurice Woodlands and Mr.. Barnes, the
District Attorney, appeared for the prose-
cutlon, but Woodlands did the prosecut-
ing. For the defense there were Horace
Platt and j. B. Garland. Mr.. Woodlands
mace the opening statement, and then
twelve talesmen were called into the box.
X. n. Mason of 912 Twentysecond street
knew Mr.. Ashworth. He had had business
dealings with him, and the opinion which
he had formed regarding him was very
unfavorable. He was excused for actual
bias.
G. E. Wilson resided in San Rafael, and
not being resident of this County he was
excused.
W. Webster. a blacksmith. had no
acquaintance with Mr.. Ashworth or any
OF his deputies. He was asked about, and
denled, any acquaintance with Chris
Buckley, and then Ackerman objected to
the question, as he believed it would
prejudice the minds of the jurors in
advance The question was ruled out and
tnen Mr. Webster was asked If he had any
olas against cases for the removal of men
from office. He said he had; it would be
an unnecessary expense for no cause, he
sad, and his feelings in the matter would
incline him to favor Mr.. Ashworth.
"A chailenge for actual bias was entered
py the people, but Mr.. Ackerman started
IN to show that the challenge was not well
founded. He secured ain admission from
the Juror that he would carefully weigh
the evidence in the case, but the juror
added that he thought M. Ashworth
ought to be allowed to serve his term out
anyhow. Mr.. Webster was allowed to re-
tire, as not being in proper frame of
mind for jury duty in the case.
:, W. i. Andrews was not acquainted with
the defendant, nor with any one of his
deputies, nor did he have any political
affiliations which would prejudice him.
he supposed he could try the case if he
had to. but as he was not on the assess
ment roll he was excused.
A Beck was excused fo: physical dis
ability.
K. G. Atkins knew Mr.. Ashworth by
sight only, and he did not know any of his
employees. He had no prejudice against
actions of this kind, nor had he any
opinion in the case. He was passed, but
later was peremptorily challenged by the
defense.
e. Hess, an optician, appeared to be
satisfactory juror, as he had no opinions of
any kind on the case, but he had no prop
erty, was not on the assessment ROLL and
so was allowed to 60.
M. Black was on the assessment roll for
personal property only, but that seemed