The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1901-11-21
DIR. CROFFORD GUILTY.
Concluded from Page 1o.l

Court told the inferior Courts that it
was not only proper for them but wise
to do so, AS to that criticism there is
nothing to warrant the defendants
complaining of them.
Regarding alleged misconduct of
counsel. l think there is no matter up
on the part Of counsel which has been
objected to but what has been already
passed upon by our Supreme Court and
mo error can be predicated upon it. l,
would like to say to counsel on both
sides, that generally and almost univer-
sally throughout the entire progress of
b trial the conduct of counsel was
exceedingly wise, judicious, courteous,
an honor to themselves and to the bar.
The trial of course. involved many issues
there were a great many things that
would be likely to tempt at least, coun-
sci to indulge in pettifogging but ! am
glad to say that there was very little
throughout the entire conduct of the
u . oAAA UAA VI VI lit COuuSGl CnG
Court can entirely approve.
The challenge to a Juror because he
has, read newspaper accounts and form
ed opinions has also been passed upon
by our Supreme Court. 1t is not as is
sometimes supposed IN opinion from
that disqualifes a juror. The question
is as to the nature of that opinion. If
that opinion is formed upon conversa-
ton with the parties to the suit or
those Immediately interested or con.
nected with it or if it is formed upon
conversation with those having know.
ledge of or from reading the testimony
or from witnesses who claim to have
personal knowledge then that kind of
an opinion might disqualify the juror
but time and time again our Supreme
Court has said and every Supreme
Court in the United States has said that
when an opinion was formed upon mere
hearsay containing the statments of
those who do not pretend to know, do
not pretend to testify, do not pretend
to have personal knowledge that no
such an opinion as that would disqual.
ify and it is equally clear and is equally
well sustained that when an opinion is
formed from newspapers articles which
are necessarily hearsay that that reason
is sufficient to d~isquality a juror. These
Jurors challenged by the defendant had
formed an opinion from newspaper
testimony. They both said in answer
to questions by the Court that they had
no such opinion as rendered them I'M
able to give a true verdict. l think the
I "surt put the question a great deal
strongly than the statute because
twi;ourt asked them if that would in
pea them in any way prejudicial to
defendant and they expressly said
1T did not. 1t is not the idea that
ishould have jurors upon a trial who
S~scfgnorant THAT they know uuthinE
fwhat every intelligent man must
~ I've heard. That is not the idea at all.
The idea is that they should have no
such an opinion in their mind even
though they may have been mistaken
that the reasonable judgment of mind,
enlightenment and effect of the issues
will not change. These jurors of course
did not sit upon the trial of the case.
/ think the challenge. for cause was
rightfully overruled by the Court.
The admission of the letters of Ham.
mond in the evidence of this case is a
question which l presume counsel has
considered carefully and the Court has
also. 1t is not sufficient to show, be.
U the time and place were not def
nitely fixed until the 1lth Of January,
that that is the commencement of the
conspiracy because the facts show that
that is not true in this case. Not only
Is that true. in fact, the letters as the
Court remembers them, have little to
lncriminate DR.. Croford directly in
them, that this is not altogether upon
the theory that it is necessary to prove
. conspiracy before DR.. Croford was
engaged upon it but as an independent.
tact 1T is proper for the State to show
that this young man and young woman
were criminally intimate with each
other; it is necessary to prove or as
proper at least to prove that as in the
entire conduct of the trial of the case
Criminal intimacy is a proof and indica-
ton that pregnancy which is a material
fact, would be the result. All of these
things gentlemen, have. been passed
upon, letters of this kind have been
passed upon by the higher Court. The
statements, the acts, the conduct of the
parties all the way through have been
given to q jury time and time again. 1
do not believe it has been prejudicial in
the case. 1t is proper to be constructed
bearing upon intent and the good faith
~ fhia ofonIoutt k~onA...-A Al. -,