The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-03-20
WILLIAM NICHOLS.

tne Stand. lie developed q case OF bad
hearing also. but under a test seeruc,l
to hear fairly we'll He is So years Of
age and is a farmer whose farrn is
located a mile and half from the Grant
farm. He new Mr.. Grant since he was
a little fellow" This reference called
attention to Mr.. Grants proportions,
which are not inconsiderable, caused a
laugh, in which Henderson, the accused,
Joined heartily. The juror stated that
he might bring in a verdict for capital
punishment, though he would want am
pie evidence. He thought he would ac-
cept circumstantial evidence. Prose-
cutor Day urged an objection against
the Jurors hearing, but the court
thought he could hear well enough. 1t
was. agreed, however, that he should be
excused.
DAVID p. GATSCHALL,
of Canton, an employe of the Canton
Wrought Iron Bridge company, develop
ed the worst case of bad hearing of
the entire lot He said his hearing be-
came affected by the noises in the shop.
There was no doubt about the extent
of his infirmity and he was excused.
JOHN BAILEY,
of Canton, a well known resident,
prominent in G. A. r. circles, engaged
in the coal business, stated that he had
read a great deal about the case but
had formed no opinion.
Are you opposed to capital punish
ment?"
mot if the evidence were strong
enough"
Gould you return a verdict of guilty
on circumstantial evidence?'
IF it were convincing, and beyond
a reasonable doubt"
Mr.. Bailey knew no reason why he
could not serve and he was accepted.
This
FILLED THE PANEL
and then came the question Of peremp-
tory challenges. Judge McCarty stated
that the state had two challenges and
the defense 16. He said he would re-
quire the state to exhaust one chal-
lenge and would then require the de-
fendant to exhaust at least half Of its
challenges before requiring the state
to exhaust it's final challenge. Reference
was made to the case of Ohio against
Annie E. George before Judge 1. II.
Taylor, as a matter of precedent. In
that case all of the defendants chal-
lenges were not exhausted. Judge Nc
Carly ordered that the state might use
one challenge and would not be required
to use the other till the defense had used
eight.
rs the state content with the jury?"
asked Judge McCarty, at $3.50 o'clock.
There was a long conference between
No, M
Day then desired to ask a question. He
was permitted to do so.
CHANCE CHALLENGED.
"Mr. Chance" asked the prosecutor,
of Norman H. Chance, do you have any
feeling against any of the counsel in
this case; Mr.. Pomerene, Judge Bald
win, -"
I'VE object" said Judge Baldwin.
Mr.. Day made a statement and the
court allowed him to ask the question.
81 am not on speaking terms with
one of them" was Mr. Chances an
swer.
(which one" asked the court.
"Pomerene," said Mr.. Chance.
The defense objected to the whole
proceeding but Judge McCarty said he
sidered ground for challenge. He said
it was embarrassing for an attorney to
be Obliged to try case to a juror who
entertained such feelings and that he
would not require it in this case.
do you challenge on that ground?"
asked the court Of Prosecutor Day.
Mr.. Dav looked at Mr.. Pomerene,
who nodded affirmatively.
I'VE challenge for cause" said the
prosecutor.
"The challenge is sustained" said the
court. Mr.. Chance, you may stand
aside"
The defense had an exception noted
concerning this ruling.
ENOS H. BROSIUS,
grain dealer, of Alliance, was called.
He answered all questions satisfactorily
and went into the jury box, again COM
pleting the panel. There was another
long wait while counsel for the state
conferred. Mr.. Pomerene wanted to
know whether the defense would exer-
else any more challenges for cause. The
defense said mo, unless something new
turned up"
BANKS EXCUSED.
"Mr. Banks" said Mr., Pomerene to C.
c. Banks, have you any dealings at
present with any of the attorneys in
this case?"
mo, SIR" said Banks.
There was another delay after which
Mr.. Pomerene said, THE state will eX-
cuse Mr.. Banks" The gentleman step
ped down and
JOSEPH p. LOTHAMER,
of North Canton, who is in the fertilizer
business, was called. He said he had
known Henderson when he was in the
business. He said he had read
about the case and had heard it talked
about. He said he had formed an opin-
ion that it would take evidence to re-
move. Prosecutor Day went right ahead
and Judge Baldwin asked him why he
didn't challenge.
I'VE do not want to challenge on that
ground" said Mr.. Day indicating that
the state considered that any opinion