Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-13
The Jury Agreed Upon Late Yes
terday Afternoon.
OPENING STATEMENT BY GOVERNMENT
Tilt Between Counsel Over the
Summoning Of a Witness.
THE EVIDENC HEARD

After two days devoted to impaneling
jury the trial of Frank W. Funk, indicted
for the murder of William H. Brooks the
23d of June, 1898, began this morning be-
fore Justice Cole in Criminal Court No. =.
Soon after the session opened the govern
ment presented to the jury statement OF
the case from its standpoint. The intro
duction of testimony was then undertaken
and continued throughout the day. Every
chair in the court room was occupied, ana
scores who desired to attend the trial as
spectators were denied admittance in order
that the room might not be overcroWded-
The deepest interest in the proceedings
was manifested by all. and particularly by
the defendant. who listened attentvely to
every word spoken, leaning forward at
times so as not to miss a sound. Funk was
unquestionably calm, collected and entirely
at ease. He smiled at intervals during the
opening address in behalf of the prosecu-
ton especially when the references to him
We're marked and bitter. He conVersed ire
ouently with Deputy Marshal Springmann,
in whose custody he is from the time OF
leaving the jail in the morning until the
return there in the early evening.
The Jury Secured.
The Jury was completed at o'clock yes
terday afternoon. The twelve men placed
under oath to decide the fate of Funk are
Messrs. Emil SPAIN. Albert Browning.
Joseph H. Gibbons, William S. Anderson,
Peter F. Leapley, Charles P. Sherzer, ST.
mon Archer, Chester NJ. Butler, Lemuel F.
Lusby Robert T. Patterson, John L. Nc
Keen and Jonathan Clock. The jury re-
tired, in charge of Deputy Marshals Garri-
son, Turner and Stutler. moment later
the first tilt between counsel occurred.
Attorney Baker asked the court for an
order summoning a certain witness for the
defense at government cost. He explained
that the knowledge of the whereabouts OF
this witness was lacking until yesterday.
and therefore his name had not been IN
cluded in list of witnesses ordered sum-
moned by the court week or more ago.
The individual in question. Mr.. Baker
further said. at present resides in BATH
more. and his testimony will be most i'm
portant tending to show that the defendant
was at some distance from the scene of the
alleged murder at the time it is said to have
been committed
The court intimated that the desired order
would be signed unless some objection
should be offered by the United States at
torney. The latter promptly entered obJec-
ton, his ground being that the application
of Mr.. Baker should have been in writing.
The court then suggested that Mr.. Baker
submit the application in writing this morn
ing. Mr.. Baker remarked that the only
thing gained by the objection was putting
the defense to the trouble of writing out
the motion. A moment later the represent
tative5 of the government asked for the
name and address or the witness referred TO.
LAS the United States attorneys office
has been so small in this small matter"
said Mr.. Baker. with spirit, the defense
will also be small. We decline to supply
you with the name and address
The United States attorney suggested to
the court that the remarks of Mr.. Baker
were improper and uncalled for. Justice
Cole. in reply, announced that the attor-
neys for the defense had the right to with
hold the information if they saw fit. Attor-
ney Wolf. however, handed to the prosecu-
tors slip of paper on which was written
the information relating to the identity and
whereabouts of the Baltimore witness, re-
marking, Il wish it understood that 1 con-
cur fully IN the remarks of Mr.. Baker as
to the smallness of the United States at
torneys office"
1T matters little what you think of the
smallness of the Office" retorted Assistant
United States Attorney Taylor.
Perhaps not" added Mr.. Baker. beyond
going TO show that the opinion is unanl-
nous "