The San Francisco call., 1896-03-24

thought of pastors generally. Then his
newspaper education, so far as it related
to the case, was included. The Juror said
he had read the newspaper reports of the
council trial, and he told Knight that he
disagreed with the verdict rendered. Be
sides the juror did not think he would
make fair and impartial Judge of the
case, and Knight challenged. Mr.. Devlin
was let go.
George Walcom's turn came next. Cook
had but little to inquire about. and Wal
com soon passed the prosecution. Then
knight took him in hand and proceeded
to get his opinions on the conduct of min
listers and the relative degree of lniquity
attached to their errors. HinKle objected.
He didn't see the use of roaming all over
the mental processes of the talesman Just
to find out whether or not he was fit
juror for the case. He said DIR. Brown
was not on trial, and his name should not
be dragged into the case. Knight submit
ted that he had a perfect right to ask the
juror what he thought of DR.. Brown, Just
as he had right to ask the jurors what
they thought of Mrs.. Davidson, and to sup
port his position he did ask Mr.. Walcom
WudI uG buOuSuO VI niTS. OdtluSOEs NE
juror did not see anything in Mrs. David
son which was repulsive to him, and so
after few more words the juror was
passed.
G. o. Deming, who came next on the
list, passed both sides easily. He was
eminently satisfactory to Mr.. Cook, and in
reply to Knights searching queries he had
none but satisfactory answers. His news
papers had not biased his judgment, the
crime of extortion had no particular abhor-
ence to him, any more than that it was a
crime, and he thought ministers were no
more entitled to peculiar brand of justice
than were the member of their congrega-
tions. He was passed, but afterward per-
emptory challenge from knight excused
him.
II. Maskow had an opinion and he was
let go without further parley.
W. II. Wharf wore the Grand Army
button. so his examination took a mill
tary turn. knight wanted to know what
he thought of his comrades and if he
would not be lenient with them when he
could. "He would help them, wouldn It
he? When. as in this case, the verdict
might mean great deal, he would give a
Grand Army man little consideration,
wouldn't he-a little better show?"
These questions did not strike the prose-
cution as being proper. DR.. Brown wears
the button, too, and once more Mr..
Hinekle's voice was raised in protest.
Again he said DR.. Brown was not on trial
there in the court, and counsel had no
right to raise such questions. But Knight
exhausted another peremptory on Mr..
Wharf. so he left the panel, anyway.
J. Newbauer knew nothing about the
case nor any one connected with it. He
thought be would make good juror, but
the defense thought not, and third de-
fendant's peremptory removed him.
w. Felitz had read the testimony and
had formed an opinion; so had d. G..
Bates, and both were excused for cause.
David German passed Mr.. Cook on his
newspaper record. He had read the testi-
mony, but had formed no opinion. He is
a comparatively recent arrival, and has
not yet fathomed Western ideas. He was
satisfactory to the court, 50 knight used
another peremptory challenge to secure
his release.
H. A. Marvin admitted that while on a
question of sentence he would be more
lenient with woman, still on question
of guilt or innocence he would treat both
alike. Mr.. Marvin had read the papers,
but his reading had brought him no