The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-04-10

Thomas Luddon is now on trial for
his life before Judge Archibald, and the
following jury:
Jacob Reldenbach, barber, Scranton.
James S. Lawson, clerk, Dunmore.
j. P. A. Tingley, druggist, Carbon
Morris ". Morris, hotelkeeper, Scran-
Fred w. Kirchoff, clerk, Scranton.
d. H. Thomas, farmer, Spring Brook.
Owen McAloon, foreman, Scranton.
Herbert r. Drum, teacher, Goulds-
boro.
Matthew Cawley, superintendent,
Scranton.
Owen 7. Walsh, barber, Scranton.
Miles Powell, engineer, Scranton.
The case was called yesterday morn
ing at II o'clock, in the main court
room. Assistant District Attorney w.
Gaylord Thomas represents the com
monwealth and has associated with
him Attorney Charles l.. Daniels. uOr.
John p. Quinnan and Attorney John ].
Murphy represent the defendant.
mere WAS tllt usual SlItu iillTu'I
trial crowd of spectators, most of then,
from Old Forge. where the killing oc-
CURED. Mrs. Patrick Rafferty,, widow
of the victim Of Luddons revolver
with several of the largest of their ten
children, sat Just outside the bar en-
closure. Her presence was made pa
thetically evident towards the close Of
the day when she burst forth in a
| loud pitiful wall at the mention of hel
dead husbands name in Mr.. Daniels
opening address for the commonwealth
| The incident created a stir In the COur,
room and caused Luedon to twist
| about in his chair uneasily for some
moments.
THE DEFENDANT
| Luddon is a large, powerfully buil'
fellow, and is reputed to be of cXtraor-
dinary strength and agility His hail
and heavy moustache arc of light
! reddish hue, and his eyes blue ant
mild looking. He sat little back from
the defendants table, and only 0cca.
sionally bent forward to offer any sug.
gestion as to the advisability of ac.
cepting or rejecting a juror. lie wa'
very intent on the proceedings, but il
| could hardly be said that he appeared
in any way nervous or excited abou'
| what was going on except in the on,
! instance noted above.
The drawing Of the jury disclosed tn
| somewhat startling fact that over >,
per cent. of the panel was unalterably
| opposed to capital punishment. six
teen of the twenty-onc men challenged
| for cause were disqualified on this ne
count Five OF six others he'd scruplet
against capital punishment, but agree(
they could bring in a verdict of mu"
der in the first degree If the evidence
warranted it.
The defense had exhausted its TWEEN
| ty challenges before the sixth juro
was collected, and the commonwealth!
! four peremptory challenges were use,
! up when only eight men were in tn,
| box. The last four jurors We're accept
ed by the defense without question.
| The Jurors peremptorily challenges
! by the defense We're: Daniel Webber
Joseph Granville, Thomas J. Phillips
| r. d. Thomas, Il. NJ. Sherwood. JOIN
/ G. Williams, w. A. Ven Storch, Davi,
| Thomas, Silas w. Finn, Charles +
! Phillips. Isaac Rosser. Thomas Camp
| bell, Edward L. Evans, jerome Nor
rCw, Paul w. Aten, John Hendv, 10
seph Silkman, William Elias, d. II
Davis. John W. James.
The four peremptorily challenged b.
the commonwealth We're: owen Mel
vim, +. j. O'Ncil, Thomas j. Gildca an,
Henry w. Coyle.
Those who We're challenged for Caus
We're; Walter l.. Dickson, John MaWr
William Cloherty, William d. Morgan
Edward j. Quinnan, Michael McCuc
| Timothy Eurke. L. j. Carroll, NJ.
Hanley, NJ. j. Purcell. John McNcals
John J, Lally, Henry w. Forber. Olive
David. James Horn, Patrick Flanna
gan, Sebastian Grinnell, a. 4. Cham
berlain, w. w. Bran low, John Ward
James McCirail.
GILDEA THE ONLY ONE.
Every one of the jurors with III,
exception of Squire Gildea, had rea
of the case and many of them ha
formed an opinion as to the guilt o
innocence of the accused.
1t,