The San Francisco call., 1901-11-27
ONLY ONE JUROR
CHOSEN So FAR
Modoc County Lynching
Case Proceeding
Slowly.
Affidavit by Defense Alleging
Prejudice of Court Is
Filed.

ALTURAS. Nov. 26.-The selection of a
fury in the case of People VS.. James w.
Brown, the alleged lyncher, progresses
very slowly Only one venireman was
examined during the entire day, Lee
Murphy, who was accepted as a juror
under objection Of the defense. Murphy 5
idea and understanding of circumstantial
and direct evidence was very hazy, and it
took the combined explanations of both
prosecution and defense to convince him
that he should believe facts addEced
through circumstantial evidence. AT ad-
Journment at 1870 o'clock this afternoon
the defense was just commencing the eX-
animation of the second venireman.
Out Of the venire of one hundred tales
men nineteen were reported absent or eX-
cused, leaving only eighty-one to choose
from. 1t is probable that a special venire
will be necessary before the jury can be
completed as the case has been so thor
oughly discussed, not only in this county,
but in all sections of the State, that a
man without an opinion as to the guilt
or innocence Of the defendants is almost
q novelty.
When court was called to order this
morning an affidavit by the defense al
leging prejudice on the part OF Judge j.
w. Harrington and a counter affidavit OF
the prosecution were submitted. They
were denied admission as evidence. The
affidavit alleging prejudice was in sub
stance as follows:
John A Brown being first duly sworn. de-
poses and says that he is personally acquainted
with and knows the defendant James w.
Brown, said James w. Brown being af-
ziant's nephew; that affant is acquainted
with and knows the attorneys for de-
PENDANTS in this case, to wit. G. +. Harris,
Clarence A. Ralzer and Spencer & Rakeri that
on about the 18th day of october. 1901, af-
iiant met and talked with Judge ]. w Har-
riEgton in the little back room of the SALON
of J. H. Derevan in the town Of AlturaS, ana
that J. W. Harrington said that if he could
get the case back for trial before him, ]. W.
Harrington he would rule favoraby to de-
PENDANTS, James W. Brown, Isom Fades ana
R. E. Levanton. and give them the beneht OF
every legal doubt that might arise; that II
he Judge Harrington. could get the villains
Raker and Harris (meaning John E. Raker and
G. F Rarris) removed from the case at
torneys for the defendants il would be but a
short time until all OF the defendants would
get their liberty, as they had been held in jail
solely and only by reason of the actions of
their present attorneys.
Judge Harrington further stated at that time
that the defendants would have long since been
liberated but for the action of their attorneys
and that he hoped to God that affiant would
have them thrown out Of the case
Said J. W. Harrington has repeatedly stated
the 18th day of October. 1901, and repeatedly
urged upon afhant as uncle Of said James W.
Brown that the attorneys be thrown out Of
the case; that affant being thus acquainted
with said attorneys for said defendants. verify
believes that the discharge of said attorneys
would have been and would be a detriment and
an injury to said defendants and their case.
JOHN A. BROWN.
This affidavit was allowed to be filed,
but was not admitted in evidence by
Judge Harrington. John A Brown, the
uncle of James w. Brown, the defendant,
is a lawyer-one of the head counsel for
the Northern Pacific Railroad in Idaho.