The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-17

SAMUEL GUSrANUs IiiALiilNAN'
,,..,,.,or who reached Richmond yes
terdav morning. was ar once p'b Jun ""'
A. v-as nearly / o.colck before inc I,-
ouired number of jurors was opl"ll'"'
some of the Norfolk contingent 'l.A.'
having formed and expressed Opinions
.oncernine the case. or being possessed
of conscientious scruplcs against the ln-
fiction Of capital punishment. onc lnih
,,as rejected ON account of deafness. tnc
,omplote list of jurymen SIS as follows.
FROM Richmond-Messrs. w. y Bar
ker. W. r. Crcokmur john foihhE
George y. Syduor. -. *. Midyctr ana
Lewis w. BurwCl
From Norfolk- Messrs. y. b. William
son. james Y. Moore 5. -. Morris. G.
J. Cannon. T.. H. Walters. r. q. White
J. Armstrong. W. g.. Petius 5. Prank
Tort. and ". G.. McFarlane.
The four jurors Withdrawn were
Nessrs. George r. Sydnor. ID. r.. Midyctt
II. H. Walters. and S. Frankfort.
The work n securing jury having
been completed. the Norfolk contingent.
in answer 10 query from judge Wit
said that they were accustomed TO eat
their dinner between ID and ! o'clock.
and were getting rather hungry. They
were accordingly sworn. and the wit
nesscs on either side called. Those for
except Mr.. & A. Brooks, but mono OF
those for the defence were ON hand, and
rule returnablc at o'clock 20 which
hour an adjournment was then taken.
was issued for Dr. E0yce IT. Brookcr.
one OF the defonces most important Wit
Nessc-.
MUCH INTEREST SHOWN.
The great interest which the case has
excited was plainly manifested 10y thc
large crowd which completely filed the
courtroom long before the hour set for
rosuming the trial. Every seat Was
taken. and the aisles and doorways were
lined with spectators. The jury were
back I'm their places shortly before
o'clock. and seemed anxious 10 go ON
with the trial. They are an intcnleent-
looking body of mcn.an except three being
under forty wears of age. and some ape
parcntly scarcely thirty.
Court was raped to order shortly af-
ter O'Clock. and the examination az
witnesses was az once begun. DR. vii
liam II. Taylor coroner was first put
on the stand. He stated that as coroner
ne was called upon on the 1th day of
last September. al geo o'clock l.. NJ. 10
view the remains of Samuel g. Thai
hmcr. then living ON Fifth street near
Marshall. If iNff Nt'" NiNfi " iNln
taken home by friends after which ne
made a post-mortcm examination and
found fourteen wounds.
Tn. coroner said hc had "a photograph
of1he body. showing the location OF the
wounds. Mr.. Richardson asked that
the photograph be put in evidence. Mr.
smith objected. and the Jury was takcn
from the room while the question was
bcinr argued. Mr.. Smith said that there
was no dispute as 10 the killing of young
Tbalhimer. nor as 10 who inflicted the
wounds photographs. he claimed were
admissible on questions Of identity No
such question. he said was raised here.
and tho only effect OF the Introduction
~ tho photograph would he 20 shock
tho Jury. and impress them In way
that they should not De impressed.
"What would be the difference. Mr.
SMITH" asked Judge witt. "bciween This
Young man. II he had not heeen Killed,
coming here and exhibiting his wounds
10 the Jury. and putting the photograph
in evidence
Mr.. Smith replied that the presence
of the injured boy I'm person would be
urinary evidence. This photograph was
secondary evidence. and could do no
possible good. as IT was admitted that the
how had died from the wounds, and that
ended the matter.
NJ. Richardson argued in favor OF the
propriety Of the admission Of the eYi-