Los Angeles herald., 1907-10-18

/
| lenges, the defense to ten. None will Ie
/ exercised until twelve men have passed
] the statutory qualification tests and the
/ box is full
: When the case was called for trial he
| fore Judge Lawlor in the superior court
! Attorney Moore of the defense inter-
posed. a request that Ford's place upon
| the calendar be given to Patrick Calhoun
, as the defense desires that he be next
tried. Judge Lawlor said that was q
matter that lay solely with the prosecu
| ton. Assistant District Attorney O'Gara
refused the request. He said the prose-
cution preferred to retry Ford and that
| the plan would not be changed.
| This trial of Ford is on the charge OF
bribing supervisor Jennings j. Phillips
with $4,000 to vote for the trolley fran
chise.
| After the several bribery cases pending
against Patrick Calhoun, Thornwell Mul-
lally, William M. Abbott Eugene p
Schmitz and Abraham Ruef had beer
continued for two weeks considerable
| time was consumed ir Strengthening out
| the newly organized panel of 130 odd
| names from which Is to be selected the
jury to try Ford.
| Delayed by Absentees
| Several panelmen had failed to respond
| to the courts subpoenas' and Judge Law
| lor would not proceed to the work OF
Jury selection until the last of them had
given an account of himself.
| The first laugh of the trial was raised
| by Herman Summer, Jewish retail Jew
elcr, who asked to be dismissed from the
panel because service by him would mean
| the closing of his store.
| But, your honor" he added brightly,
''I have brought friend with me who is
willing to serve in my place.
AS the amusement of the crowd sub
sided, under a stern look from the bench,
Judge Lawlor said: You are enterpris-
| ing at least"
Summer. after begging hard. got off
and, followed by his accommodating alter
nate, left the synagogue
1t was Ii 40 o'clock when the calling OF
the panel was finished. All witnesses
were excused until next Monday morning
When twelve veniremen had been called
to the box and sworn, Heney made half
minute statement of the gist of the indict-
ments and at once began the examfna-
tion of jurors
Harry A. Berg a Fillmore street cigar
dealer, was the first to be subjected TO
inuuisition. Heney asked him If he sup
ported the candidacy of Frank MCGOWAN,
who is William II. Langdons rival FOR
election to the district attorneyship.
eRefran1eS QUESTION
Earl Rogers objected to this. asserting
that the law gave counsel no right to
ask a Juror how he meant to vote. Judge
Lawlor sustained the objection. or THIS
Heney complained, saying that inasmuch
as MCGOWAN from the stump was de-
nouncing the bribery graft prosecutors
for granting immunity to the bribe-taki-g
superyisors it was his right to inquire
into the jurors state of mind IN that
respect Heney was permitted to re-
frame his question after laying founda-
ton. and drew from Berg the statement
that he felt no hostility toward the prose
cution on any account, He was passed
by Heney for cause, and likewise py
Rogers.
Berg was accepted, subject to peremp-
tory challenge as probationary juror
No l.
John r. Jenkin, jeweler, said he had
formed ap opinion but could and would
set it aside He would not be influenced
against a conviction by the fact that the
supervisors had been granted immunity
as the price of their testimony He was
under cross-examination when the noon
adjournment was taken at 1880.
Examinations moved rapidly a the af-
ternoon session. Jeweler Jenlkin with
stood the ouestionings of both sides and
was accepted tentatively as juror No, 2
Arthur Brown, architect, qualified as
No. 8.
Club Man Examined
George w. Turner. director of the
Bohemian club, stuck to the assertion
that he had an unalterable opinion. He
was excused by consent.
James H. Jones. stationer, escaped In
like manner over the sixth man in the
box. Marti F. Cosgriff merchant, oppos-
ing counsel engaged in lengthy dis
pute. Cosgriff said he had fixed opinion;
then seemingly contracted himself by de-
claring he could set 1t aside; yet II no
evidence were offered ne would vote tne
of the probability that naval necessities
Heney resisted and Judge Lawlor dis
allowed the challenge.
Shailer Scott, engaged in the hardware
business, formed and expressed the DUAL
ined opinion that If what the papers
saw Is true they are all guilty" He was
excused on challenge by the prosecution.
Louis Joseph, retired merchant, was ex-
cused for having a fixed opinion. Like
wise was Thomas Wilson contractor.
Charles w. Wilmington, dealer in
lime. said that his fellow membership
with Ford in the Masonic order would
make 1t difficult for him to believe the
defendant guilty; he doubted he could
do impartial justice as juror. Heney
promptly challenged and Attorney A. A.
Moore resisted
In cross examination Moore asked sew
eral intimate questions.
"The tenets of the Masons do not obhge
YOU to shield any guilty man, do they?"
mo"
az they did you would regard that
order as menace to the community,
would you notT'
Yes"
.'You did not mean to say that the tact
that both YOU and Gen. Ford are Masons
would make you negligent in the per-
formance of your sworn duty; you did
not mean that you or any other Mason
was so taught by the order?"
To this IIeney objected, saying that
Moore was lecturing the juror to affect
him and any other jurors who might
happen TO be Masons. Moore disavowed
Il and amended his question.
Mr.. wilmington declared finally that he
had a fixed opinion and on the strength
of that Judge Lawlor sustained Heneys
challenge.
a petition for writ of prohibition
made TO the supreme court by w. l.
Brobeck, Joseph e. Green and q. III.
Umbsen, upon which decision is still
awaited, acted as a stay when the charges
against these defendants for bribing the
.tw4a~ D