The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-02-04
MAY NOT Try DEWEYS.
Work of Securing a Jury Elk,
hausting the Panel.


Chauncey Dewey, the millionaire
ranchman, and his two cowboys,
charged with the murder of the Berry
family, the attempt to secure jury was
continued today. The belief is express
ed that ii will be impossible to obtain
a jury in this county
Dewey's line of defense, according to
hint dropped today in the examination
of veniremen, will be that the Berrys
were killed in a general fight, and the
defense will assert that it is uncertain
who fired the fatal shots.
Much. interest has been taken in the
case, owing to the fact that it was the
elimination of a long quarrel between
cattlemen and settlers as to their sup
posed rights.
The witnesses brought by Dewey are
quartered at the Grier house, so in
number, and have the best of fare.
They are mostly his employees and
have the appearance of young country
farmers.
The Berrys and their witnesses most
ly came overland and are stopping at
the Cottage hotel and other places.
Roy and Beach Berry are cousins,
was killed. They are good natured look
ing fellows and have none of the des-
perado look about them.
Roy Berry has a long scar on his
right cheek, the effects of the battle OF
June last.
They did not appear in court Wed
nesday. Mrs Berry, widow of D. B.
Berry, the father, and Mrs. Viola
Berry, widow of Alpheus Berry, one OF
the boys that was killed, are also mere
Three of the jurymen were opposed to
capital punishment and were excused
at once.
The following named were passed for
cause by the state: John Ellis, Chas.
Darling, G. Reeves, R. S. Miller, ]. W.
Gregory, Geo. Wheeler, T. c.
Beauchamp, G. G. Campbell. NJ. G:
Mccall, John Bogart, G. w. Chase and
A. A. Shadow.
The following is list OF the 1uil
counsel on each side:
For state-L. D. Hotchkiss, county
attorney, Cheyenne county; X II. III
lotson, county attorney Norton county
General L. W. Colby. Beatrice, Nep:;
N b Mccormick, Phillipsburg, and L.
H. Thompson, Norton
For defense-Ex- Senator John Il.
Hessen, Manhattan; w. c. MORAN NC
Cook, Neb.; Jos. Waters, Topeka; a
E Harvey, Lincoln. Neb.; Dempster
Scott Atwood: Judge ]. R. Hamilton,
and L. H. Wilder of Norton
The most plausible reason for the APP
parent diIatory tactics of the de1ehu-
ants lawyers is to try in every way
possible to get error INTO tne case Tas.ie
will be remembered that the jessie
Morrison case was reversed and re
manded by the supreme court, because
a juror or two was lett IN the poA
whose opinion as to Miss Morrlson
guilt was a bit too strong. Anyhow
whatever may be the idea of the de-
tense at it's present rate the jury Will
not be selected before Monday.
Venireman Beauchamp, whose nome IS
in Sand Creek township, and VINO is a
farmer, was really more man d IL ~, g
for Judge Morlan. His reasoning was
sound and at no time could the ven
erable LAWYER from Nebraska mix MINI
To give something of an ldea OIL lhe
latitude allowed a defendants lawyer
in interrogating a juror this part OF the
"cross- examination" OF MI beau
champ will be of benefit; -
you heard along about the time 1t
is alleged to have occurred OF sIiools
ing affair between some rancnineh al ally,
settlers in Cheyenne county, uio 49, 80
Il read something in the papelS
about such an occurrence.
Did you ever hear anybody mehtloh
it?"
Nobody that purported to know
''Well, of parties that olo hol hAiiO"
ANYTHING about it?"
ssWeu, [ heard newspaper talk.
Did any one of your nelgnpoEs IL
! talking to you, or you talking TO tnell;
state their opinion from wnat IneS s sac
heard and read as to whether one SIDE
! or the other was wrongE +
IT think maybe I have heard that
both sides were wrong, or something
ny e'Wen did any of them express an
oninion state their belief which side
was right or wrong?"
s'I do not know.
ssGVen. in your talk did not you say
from what you have heard and read
what you believed about II?
wei, sir, I expect I did; I did mol
know" od
you had formed something OF al
| opipior
'l %A At that time I formed some idea
based upon what I had read: yes, sir
Now. from the opinion you na4 ~
formed you have a little curiosity &c
| know whether the opinion you have
| formed was right or wrong? .
L should like to know what the trutf
/ is in the matter.
| ssFrom what you read you formed ar
! opinion. and now at the present TIME
YOU from the evidence would like &c
know whether they told you the exac'
truth about it or not?"
II presume I do; would like to know
how it is. whether it is or not"
ssNow. after what you have read, anc
what you have heard. and what YOU
see here in court, do you look upon the
defendants here as innocent menu
YOU believe them innocent now, dc
your"
not
I OlO not dSh FOu ehNSs - SOO ~
lieve now they are innocent
DO I believe they are innocent?"
Yes, now"
Il have no opinion at all"
mo opinion at alp
Not that I know of.
well, you did have an opinion once
you say?"
Yes, I think So"
What took place to change tina
opinion?"
ssTNeI1 have a faVOrd Bile opinion O.
the appearance of those who are &C
cused."
.sThen had not the appearance of thu
accused in court been favorable, yol
would have believed differently from
what you now believer