The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-09

you about the case tell them you are jurors
and then, if they persist, report them TO
the court"
A recess was then taken till O'Clock,
and everybody filed out of the courtroom on
except those who had business with the
clerk. Durrant and his jailer passed out
very quickly, in time to escape the ap-
proach of young woman with huge
bouquet of white blossoms which she
stated to deputy were intended Tor Dur.
rant.
When court reopened the young woman
with the bunch of white blossoms occupied
front seat and gazed wonderlngly at the
prisoner as he returned to his seat. She
failed, however, to give him the bouquet.
The examination of veniremen was I'M
mediately resumed.
M. Jacobs, 1907 Hayes street, was ex-
cused on the challenge of the prosecution,
on the ground of having formed an opln-
ion which could not be moved by clrcum-
stantial evidence.
]. C. Zellehack, So7 Franklin street, was
challenged by the prosecution because he
could not accept circumstant1al evidence
as the basis of verdict carrying the death
penalty. The court endeavored to make
case of circum stantial evidence clear to the
juror, and asked him if, on such a state OF
facts being proven case beyond all ques-
ton, he meant to say he would not give
any weight to such evidence. Inc Juror
answered:
81 was talking about the circumstantial
evidence in the Durrant case, and do not
believe in circumstantial evidence"
The challenge was allowed.
l.. S. Bachman, G.. Zerr, William Ring
and Max Wulff were sworn as to quallflca-
tons and competency, and upon being ex.
amined were excused, the first three on
challenges by the prosecution and the last
one on the challenge of the defense.
| G. Zerr, who is butcher at 1922 Broad
way, had an opinion that could not be
removed.
William Ring, Nineteenth and Castro
streets, had no conscientious scruples
| against the death penalty, but he would
| look with prejudice and suspicion on all
circamstantial evidence.
Max Wulff, 26S Battery, said If he were
chosen as juror he would be governed by
| the law and the evidence, but had formed
and still retained an opinion which no
amount OF testimony could change.
| A. B. Cheney, 1905 Guerrero street; b. s.
Levy, 1885 California street; N. H. Horton,
| 30 Devisadero street, and l.. Gregoire, 816
Capp street, were sworn and examined as
| to competency and all except Mr. Gregoire
were excused.
| Mr.. Cheney said he had no scrupIes
against the death penalty and no prejudice
| against circum stantial evidence. He did
not know Durrant nor any OF his family
| and never attended Emmanuel Baptist
| Church, though he had friends who were
| members of that church. He had never
| discussed the case with them or any wit
| nesses. He had read the case and dis
| cussed it and had formed an opinion that
would require evidence to remove.
Mr.. Deuprey for the defense examined
| him and contested the States challenge,
and insisted upon an exec ption to the
courts allowance of the challenge.
Mr.. Horton and Mr.. Levy both had
| opinions that would require evidence to
| remove.
Louis Gregoire, who was accepted and
sworn to try the case, is clerk in book.
store. He said he had no conscientious
| scruples against the death penalty, and
was not acquainted with the defendant.
He had lived near Emmanuel Baptist
Church for nearly three years, but knew
none of the members and never attended
| the church.
On examination by the defense, Mr..
Gregoire said he had read the testimony,
but could not say whether it was true; he
did not believe he had discussed what he
had read. although he might have heard it
| spoken of on the streets. His wife did not
speak good English; so she did not discuss
such things with him. He stated that he
had not made up his mind as to the guilt
| or innocence of the defendant He be-
know who it was. He further stated that
he had done jury duty three or four times,
and thought circumstantial evidence and
evidence as to the identification should be
| taken with a great deal of care. He was
| sure that he was entirely free from any
opinion, and knew of no reason why he
could not try the case fairly and
David Lehman. 1916 Sacramento street,
| B. Williams 1927 Ellis street and G. l..
| Hinkel, 21S Devisadero street, were sworn.
and all excused for cause on the States
challenge.
Mr.. Lehman had an opinion. Mr.. Will
liams objected to circumstant;al evidence
and Mr.. Hinkel had az opinion, which
only strong evidence would remove. They
were challenged and excused.
| A. A. Taft, Ais Golden Gate avenue, P.
Abrahamson, 1922 Hyde street. and G. l..
Lansing, 1885 Pacific avenue, were the
next sworn and all were excused on the
challe nge Of the prosecution or account of
prejudice against circumstantial evidence.
A. Erb, III Grove street, w. G. McGeorge
| and w. r. Lazatier, ABS Hayes street, were
sworn as to competency. John Scholin,
ITO Sacramento street, was also called, but
not answering. an attachment was issued
for him returnable at 10 o'clock this morn
ing;
NCIQlCb Oh NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. SNlU6EC6. MT.
McGeorge was not on the assessment roll,
and Mr.. Lazatier could not try the case
fairly and impartially. They were ex-
cused on the States challenge.
J. Breig, 212A Linden street, Charles
Hehringhi, 1901 Folsom street, and Patrick
higgins, corner Nevada and Utah streets,
were sworn and examined. They were ex-
cused on challenges of the State Mr..
Breig and Mr.. Hehringhi had prejudice
against circumstantiai evidence and Mr..
higgins had all opinion, which could be
overcome only by the strongest kind of
evidence.
The court then stated that he was about
to order recess and, turning to the jury,
proceeded to admonish the eight men in
the box. The Judge reminded them that
it was their duty not to speak or read
about the case and to allow no one to speak
to them.
"Do not permit yourselves to be inter-
viewed, or accosted or addressed by any
body relative to this case" he continued,
''it makes no difference who it is. There
is great Improperly in undertaking to in
terview jurors in any case, much more
particularly in a criminal case, and you
will, therefore, avoid all interviews. Avoid
all expressions and formations of opinion;
and should any person accost you and in
sist upon interviewing you, or talking to
L. L u r.