Omaha daily bee., 1897-06-09

dence. He was challenged for cause by the
defense. Judge Baker questioned the Juror
and ELECTED statements that bis previous
| opinion would not have any weight In reach-
| ing a verdict. The objections were overruled.
| Jurors Tompsett. Spettlen, Singleton, Bart
lett, Harris, Norton, Lighe. stiles and Forgy
| were SUCCESSFULLY passed for cause by the
| defense.
The state recalled Juror Harris colored
man, for further examination regarding
| whether he had ever been employed by Bart
! ley or knew him. He was questioned very
closely by the attorney general as to whether
| he had talked With anybody regard
| ing the BARLEY case or his verdict but de-
| MED that he had talked with any one about
| 1t. He was then questioned closely to test
| his understanding of the English language
| and his ability to understand the evidence
| and the instructions OF the court. He
answered the questions inteligently and was
passed
At this point the county attorney called the
| attention of the court to the fact that A. l..
| Bartlett had responded to summons issued
| for w. g. Bartlett and had not been regu-
| larly summoned himself to serve as jury
man. After consultation It was agreed by both
| sides that he should be excused and he was
| ordered to stand aside.
| Louis Peterson was called. He said he
| lived at 1918 Half Howard street, and Ia
employed by the street railway company as
| a motorman on the Farnam street line. He
had lived in this city ten years and had
worked for the street railway company five
| years, and with the gas company for the
| previous five years. He said he had not been
| approached regarding his verdict. He was
passed by both sides.
MAKE PEREMPToRY CHALLENGES.
This completed the examination for cause
and the defense was called upon for its first
| challenge. NJ. +. Singleton was excused
| upon peremptory challenge.
Henry A. Homan, 2617 Davenpart street, a
liveryman, was called. He had read of the
case. but said the impression created by
these reports would not prejudice him in
passing upon the evidence. He was passed
for cause.
The defense next excused Alfred D. Cox
upon its second peremptory challenge.
Fred A. Tompkins. 2715 Douglas street. a
carpenter, was called. He had read OF the
case and had formed an opinion based on
what he had read, but said this would have
no weight as against the evidence, and would
not interfere with reaching a verdict based
entirely on the evidence. He was challenged
for cause by the state, but the objection was
overruled and Tompkins was seated in the
jury box.
Louis Peterson was the man removed by
the defense on its thiro peremptory challenge,
and G. r. Wahlgren, market gardener living
in West Omaha precinct. was called. He
said he formerly tended bar on Dodge street
for several years. He said he had not been
approached by any one regarding his verdict
and had not formed any opinion in the case.
He was ssed fer cause.
On It's first peremptory challenge the state
excused +. Norton and II. l.. Akin was
called. He testified that he lived at 525 South
Thirtyfirst street and is student Of medi-
cine. He said he had read of the case and
had formed an impression based on the truth
fulness of the newspaper reports and was in
doubt whether he could lay this opinion
aside n verdict evidence.
He was challenged for cause by the defense
and was excused
Chris Steiger Of West Omaha precinct
said he WIS a farmer. He had read OF the
case and had formed an opinion, but thought
this would not prevent him from reaching a
verdict based on the evidence. He said he
had not been approached regarding his YER
dict. He was passed for cause.
On it's fourth peremptory challenge the de-
fense excused Fred A. Tompkns, and G. A.
Roberts, 1905 Binney street, roofer, was
called He had no opinion, had not been ap-
preached regarding his verdict, did not
know the defendant or his counsel and had
not formed any opinion based on newspaper
reports he had read, and was passed by both
sides.
Martin Spettlen was excused on the fifth
challenge of the defense
A. p. Fry. farmer of Union precinct, was
called He had not read of the case, had not
talked of 1t, knew nothing about it, and had
not formed any opinion regarding it. He
was passed for cause by both sides.
On its sixth peremptory challenge the de-
Tense excused Robert Forgy of Florence. and
G. e. Williamson, 2519 Farnam street, a re-
tired painter, was called. He said he had
not formed any opinion in the case from re-
ports he had read of the case. The Juror
was excused on challenge of the defense on
account of his age, which he stated was 62
years.
William A. Dunn, an expressman living at
1908 Pierce street, was next called. He had
not read anything about the case and had
formed no opinion regarding it. He was ex-
cused on account of his age, being over 60
years
George s. Mack clerk in the headouar-
ters of the Woodmen of the World living at
Z2ll South Nineteenth street, was called He
mad read OF the case, but had not formed an
opinion which would require evidence to re-
move tie was passed by both sides
On its second peremptory challenge the
state excused 4. E. Harris.
John A. Finch, a missionary living at 2O9
south Thirtieth street, was called.
On Its seventh peremptory challenge the
defense excused George S. Mack and Benia-
min Trumbull, clerk for the Western Car
Service association, living at 2OlO Dorcas
street, was called. He proved acceptable to
both sides and was seated in the Jury box
1t being nearly o'clock, and each side
having but one peremptory challenge left the
jury was excused until this morning.