The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-06

of the young man or his defeat by the
jailer. He did not even inform his attor-
neys of the matter when he returned to
court at 2 o'clock, and they only learned oil
it when asked for information by the news
paper men. Mrs. Durrant, who had not
been present at the morning session, put
In an appearance at o clock and took her
seat at the side of the accused as the court
ordered the call of the roll of jurors. The
room was crowded with spectators, many
of them being ladies, who gazed wonder
lngly on the features of the young prisoner.
f. w. Churchill of 500 Haight street
stated at the start that he had conscien-
tious scruples against the infection of the
death penalty. He was challenged by the
prosecution and excused. H. F. Hegler
was challenged and excused on the same
ground.
A. Neustadter of 92715 Post street had
neither conscientious scruples against the
infliction of the death penalty nor preju-
dices against circumstantial evidence. He
answered the other questions of the prose
cution satisfactorily and was passed. Mr..
Deuprey asked him if he had not told the
court in the morning that he was sick.
The venireman stated that he was, but
felt better. He had cramps at times; but
stated that it was not chronic and would
not, probably, interfere with his duty as q
juror.
1--WE ask that Mr.. Neustadter be ex.
cused," said Mr.. Deuprey. His illness
would certainly interfere with his duties
as juror. We want healthy men in tine
iurybox and want the benefit of a mind
capable of reasoning without interference
with physical ills"
ri am as anxious as you are, Mr.. Deu-
prey" said his Honor, "to have healthy
men on the jury. / do not think that Mr..
Neustadter's illness is of such character
as to interfere with his serving"
Mr.. DeupreY then resumed his examina-
ton of the venireman and discovered that
he had most positive opinion as to the
strongest kind OF evidence. He was chal-
lenged for this reason and Judge Murphy,
who appeared to think he had all the quail
ifications necessary for juror, questioned
him at length, only to be met with the
statement that the opinion was very
strong. The challenge was then allowed
and Mr.. Neustadter was excused.
l.. M. Bannen, who resides at 2012 Pierce
street, passed the examination of the pros
for an expressed opinion which it would
require very strong evidence to move. The
challenge was allowed.
III. Schlessleman, grocer at 1900 Hayes
street, had conscientious scruples against
the inhiction of the death penalty. He
was challenged by the prosecution and
excused.
Five more veniremen were called to the
box and sworn. Henry Kohler, who re-
sides at Jones and Lombard streets, being
first examined. He seemed to answer
satisfactorily the usual questions pro-
pounded by the District Attorney, and
was passed. After passing into the hands
of Deuprey, he stated that he had strong
opinion on the case, formed by reading
the reports of the testimony at the Ooro-
ner's inquest. He was challenged for
cause and excused.
III. I'll. Hickman was excused on the
ground that he could not join in verdict
of guilty on circumstantial evidence. L..
Bloom had conscientious scruples against
the infection of the death penalty, and was
also challenged and excused.
George Stokes of Sill McAllister street,
testified that he had an opinion in the case
which could only be removed by the
strongest kind of evidence. He was chal-
lenged by the prosecution and excused.
III. Euler, a furniture manufacturer re-
siding at 1911 Lyon street, stated to Mr..
Barnes that he had no conscientious scru-
pies against the infection of the death
penalty and no prejudice against circum-
stantial evidence. After few more ques-
tons he was passed by the prosecution,
Mr.. Deuprey then taking him in hand for
cross-examination. He stated positively
that he had no opinion in the matter.
DO you recognize, Mr.. Euler, that cir
cumStantial evidence should be taken with