The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-04-20

''do the best he could when it came to
passing upon the disputed deeds.
Mr. Foote made short work of the gen.
tleman when he handed him a photo
graphic copy OF the deeds held by Mrs.
Craven and asked him to read them.
Borkheim struggled with them manfully,
but had to give it up as bad Job. He
could not read them at ALL so he was ex-
cused by both sides by mutual consent.
At this juncture the court took the GUS
tomary noon recess.
B. +. CARAT, the foundryman, was
taken in hand by Mr.. Pierson when court
reconvened for the afternoon session, and
qualified 10 serve as good Juror.
He said he had found himself greatly
interested in the romantic story of Sena-
tor Fairs life and death and the struggle
for his millions. He nad read nearly
everything printed in the newspapers
about the case and had expressed some
very emphatic opinions botn at home and
at the foundry.
WAS that opinion such that evidence
would be required to remove it?" asked
Mr.. Pierson.
81 think so, as / still retain that opin-
ion" replied the talesman.
Mr.. Foote asked Mr. CARAT a few
questions, but they were of the per-
iunctory sort, as he was satisfied that the
iOuhNly man WOulQ not 40. MI.
was challenged and Judge Slack sent him
away.
Rudolph Samson, an importer OF Japan
csc goods, said in response TO Mr.. Pier
sons long string of questions that he
knew none OF the parties connected with
the case. When Mr.. Foote took hold of
him he confessed readily that he had
formed an opinion so strong that he could
not rid himself of it, and therefore could
not be an impartial Juror.
Mr.. Foote's challenge had the effect of
severing the talesman from further con-
nection with the trial.
Richard c. Matteson, a Larkin- street
grocer, couldn't say that he knew any
body concerned in the great case, and told
Mr.. Foote he had read very little about
Senator Fairs estate-in fast, had not
bothered himself about it at all and did
not want to- Naturally, then, he was
wholly unpreiudiced and said he guessed
he wouid make good juror. He knew of
no reason why he shouldn't. He had
never expressed an opinion about the Fair
case, neither had he ever heard any body
express one.
There was nothing to DO but to pass Mr..
Matteson. Unless he meets with a
peremptory challenge from either side he
Will serve as one of the twelve wise men
who will finally pass upon the evidence
II. B. Burlingames responses to Mr.
Plerson' s queries were affirmative only IN
two instances. He had met Mrs. Craven
some four years ago, when his son was a
pupil at her school, and was also ac-
qualnted with one of the gentlemen men,
TONED by Mr.. Pierson. To Mr.. Foote he
said he had read considerable about the
case, but was quite sure he had not
formed any definite opinion as to the
merits OF any OF the claims, nor had he
ever expressed himself on the subject
He. too, was passed.
William a. Brown had read good deal
about the case and had talked with people
VINO professed to know some thing about
1t. Upon this he had formed an opinion
that he was sure disqualified him from
serving. No amount OF questioning on
the part OF Mr.. Pierson would get him TO
say that he could cast his opinion aside,
so be was challenged by that attorney
and was excused.
The examination of Louis j. O'Farrel
elected the information that he could
boast OF no particular acquaintanceship
with any OF the people interested in the
litigation. He knew some of the attor.
neys and litigants by sight only. But he
had read good deal about the develop
Cooney, but had not formed any clear-cut
opinion. Mr.. o. Farrell thought he would
make fair, unbiased Juror.
Mr.. Foote had few important uues-
tons TO ask the talesman, and wheu he
aid he found out that the law firm OF
knight & Heggertv had transacted bust
ness for his brother, j. J. OFarre II, the
real estate dealer, who not long since
went into BANKRUPTCY. The talesman was
working Tor his brother at that time. He
declared, however, that personally he had
never had any dealings of consequence
with the attorneys mentioned and was
certain he had never discussed the Fair
case With them. He also admitted an ac-
quaintanceship with Attorney Hefer, but
had not talked with him either. Mr..
o Farrell was passed.
Harrie c. Biggs of the California Ma
chine Company had read all about the
case, and had formed an opinion that it
would take very strong evidence TO shake.
He was prom pity challenged and allowed
to return to his business
For similar reasons Patrick BoIand was