Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-05-13
May Issue a
Drag-Nef Veni1e
INK, as Though Sheriff ayor SMay Soon be Enpoaered
q Go on the Street VIII His Deputies and Serve
Notice on Citizens Right and Left 70 Complete The
nr, THAT is 10 Try Mortensen fol odusdes.

,,,s % counsel on either side Oh
40 Mortensen case, it is not lmproO,
", hat Sheriff Neylor and deputies
WV WV, no empowered within weeh 70
" :" ont upon the street armed VIII"
r venlre authority and compel 'he
ssarce IN court of citizens right anu
,ao with view to securing jury duly
IAN them, although there are s0l
mes IN the box in addition to the oio
NAM s,mmoned. Should this be
Acne there will doubtless be sca''e'
,ng in all directions of those desiious
noAirg the notoriety and RESPONSE
,,ut, hat would attach to the woiK
a,Jrad Of them. However, there may
So turn in the tide and jurymen De
soourod the next day or two with muoh
arootor rapldity than for days past
Judging from the beginning OF TO-
laws proceedings in trying to secure
h,rv IN the Mortensen-H Hay murder
case today win be a repetition OF yes
,erdays work. OF the fifty special Ju-
rors summoned to be examined on 'heir
voIr dire, 16 were excused, being louhu
disqualified. Some did not pay taxes
o,hers were hard Of hearing ana olh-
arc were LET of on account of their be-
ing discrepancies in their names
Two figures that have been promin-
emit in the trial since IT began one week
oso Yesterday. were absent this morn
inc They we're Hon. James Sharp. and
Henry Mortensen, brother OF the &C,
cnsed M. f. Mortensen and MS son
Jesse were on hand early ana sat neal
Tho accused man was brought into
court by Deputy Sheriff Raleigh. liz
wore the same wearied look so notice
able Yesterday and manifested deep IN
terest IN ali that was said and done. A
times he would turn his attention u
acme figures he had on a piece OF paper
and several times referred them TO MI
counsel Following are those who pass
ga the examination on their yoir dire
n. ! Hartwell. ]. D. Kenworthy, w
Tnerbeck. r. NJ. Carlisle, JOS. w. Bur
Ridge Robert Baby, L. U. Hiskey, 9
z. Richardson, r. l. Jack, +. A. Sladt
G. +. Darlington, X. g. 0ttiey, j. A
Combs S, H. Gordon, w. A. Sherman
W. H. Peterson, G.. W. Smith, c, !
Beers, Edward Korupkat, s. c. Sud
bury, J. P. johnson, Duncan McVichi'
W. d. Gaby, b. Bytheway, Henry Cou
lam 7 H RutterWorth
The box was then filed with job
+. Butterworth, Henry g. Ottley. G. I
Beers, F. A. Slade, Geo, w. Smith,
ID, Kenworthy.
In less than FIVE minutes the box wa
again empty the questions and an
swers asked and given In each cas-
were as follows:
You have read of this case, hay
your"
81 have"
From what you have read and hear
have you expressed an opinion as
me guilt or innocence OF the defend
anti"
Il have"
THAT Is an unqualified opinion?"
1T is.
You could not enter upon the trii
Oh this cause and render a true an
(ust verdict without being influence
BY that opinion2"
II could not"
Challenged for implied bias the
were promptly excused.
- j. Hartwell, w, Ellerbeck, w. |
1apy' X |, Jack, U. U. Hiskey an
hopert Brady then took seats in II
Jury box The first three were excuse
~ ss short a time as II takes TO relat
y, Mr. Gahy said his opinion as TO II
sum OF innocence Of the accused we
20 strong he did not believe evlden,
eyulu eaange II In the least.
M ~ l. JACK, U. U. Hlskey and Robei
p.auy were excused on the ground {
n N. Carlisle, Richard Howe. ]. 4
SO9mos, j. J. Farrell, c. s. Carringto
anu henry Coulam were the next ST
ar carlisle said that he had nc
Turned an opinion as 10 the guilt q
Innocence OF defendant, but had cor
1uued 10 walt until the court and fur
solueo mat question. He did not thin
W. had the right TO form an Opinion
Juror was acquainted with Mr.. Sharl
ehu said he would place great weigh
~, ~ ms testimony but not any moi
"sn any other witness under oath.
cr. naye you ever served on a jury in
Yes, sir"
What case?"
The Hopt murder case"
What was the verdict in that case
~ was verdict OF guilty"
A'lorhey c. B, Stewart challenged n
, r on the ground OF implied bis
s, nuer section 1894 subdivision 5. r.,
seo statutes 1889 which provides tn.
,. Juror may be challenged for "havir
$3.50 on trial jury which has trle
shs O.nes person for the offeni
me court held that the statute a
"0' apply to this instance because