The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-03

Stephen Shurba, the boy alleged to
have shot and killed John Hamormik in
a Washington avenue saloon on the
night of July 4, was placed on trial
for his life today before Judge F. ".
Brown. The lad appeared decked in
new suit of clothes, and as he watched
the judge, the lawyers and the crowd
with bright-eyed, boyish interest, he
looked, little. like a murderer. He
ity Of his position, and his optimism
expressed in his every action.
Shurba is represented by Charles A.
Daily, while the states case is being
conducted by John F. Dahl, first as
sistant county attorney.
Immediately after the appointment of
George Meyers, Frank Nantz and Sam
uel Levy as triers, the attorneys and
the. court settled down to the tedious
task! OF securing a jury: Most Of the
veniremen examined had heard of the
case, but few of them had formed an
the accused. T wo men were accepted
from the first half dozen, and it ap,
pears as tho the jury selection process
will be unusually brief for murder
trial.
Question of Prejudice.
From the questions asked the venire-
men, little Of the exact nature of either
the, states or the defendant case
could be ascertained except that it
would be Mr.. Dahl's purpose to prove
reconciliation and Mr.. Dalby's effort
to prove that young Shurba was SO un,
der the influence Of liquor and anger
es to be incapable of preme ditation
Counsel for the defense insisted upon
| asking each venireman if evidence tc
the effect that Shurba, minor, was
| under the influence Of liquor given him
in his fathers saloon would create 8
prejudice for or against the prisoner
Two Of the men under examination
stated that it would and they were ex
cused. One of the ten peremptory chal
lenges allowed the defense was uset
this forenoon. &. n.
| The testimony promises to be some
what voluminous, as there were NOR,
than dozen men in the saloon at tn.
time Of the shooting. That there will
be much contradictory testimony is as
sured, since no one of the eye witnesse
Of the tragedy tells the same story a
to the incidents leading up to the shoot
ing. The only point upon which al
agree and which no one will deny
that the defendant fired three shot
and that one of these resulted in tn
death of. HamOrmik. :
Repartee in Murder Trial.
An incident Of the forenoon tina
caused general amusement was the til
between the attorneys. In his prelim
mary examination Mr.. Daily asked on
Of the veniremen if he 7'knew Jo
y Rhodes, who is supposed to be a de
tective.' The witness answered in tn
negative, but Mr.. Dahl did not forge
the remark and when he took the wit
ness for examination he asked: 1900
",And you say you don't know MI
1 khGaes, ,, who is supposed to be de
! ono sir - - 7aa241ss>:,
RI Gwen, do you know Mr.. Daily, VIII
is supposed to be lawyer?'
The, answer was drowned by tn
laughter of the crowd.
The Blair Trial.
Peter Blar, indicted for ma,
slaughter in the second degree, allege
to have been committed by runnin
down with his automobile and KILN
, Frank A.. Jerome, was placed on tri:
today before II. Judge Andrew Hol
.],After numerous delays the case VIZ
+ begun at 2 ,p.n1.y County attorney (
y j. Smith is conducting the, prosec1
- ton, while A. H. Hall is attorney II
the prisoner.