The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-02-03
Two jurors accepted subject challenge in Calhoun trial

enteen veniremen were put through the
mill during the day and the panel was
again exhausted when adjournment
was taken in the afternoon. new
venire Of so has been ordered for this
morning and the hearing of excuses
viii be taken up by Judge Lawlor ar
o'clock, so that the regular examina-
tions may be resumed before noon.
Owen /. Gibson. secretary of a hard
ware company, was the first talesman
examined yeAerday morning, and his
answers in reply to the questions put
by the attorneys for the defense led
to an interesting bout between him and
Heney. He had an opinion, he told
Moore. to the effect that supervisors
who violated their oath of office would
violate any oath and that, while he
believed money had passed. he con-
sidered it a holdup.
Does this prejudice you have amount
to a feeling against the prosecuting
oficers?" Heney asked when the juror
had been passed to him.
I don't like to say" answered Glib
son.
ooh. that's all right" Heney an
swered. I'VE are not thin skinned"
Gibson denied that he approved of
bribery of public officials. but when
cornered in his statements declared out
right that he did not believe any brib-
cry had been committed, except, pos
sibly. by the Home telephone company
He was challenged by the prosecution
and excused. James D. Givens of POPS
Green street, a photographer. was ex-
cused for personal business reasons.
COMES FROM PETALUMA
James A Godfrey. who was accepted
as the ninth prospective juror, was
formerly a resident of Petaluma and
has lived in this city but a short time,
conducting a lodging house at 2014
Webster street. He declared that he
had no opinion concerning the granting
Of immunity contracts or relative to the
car strike controversy, and believed he
would be a fair juror to both sides. He
was accepted without challenge after
a comparatively short examination.
Henry c. Golcher. a sporting goods
merchant, proved to be a strong ad-
mirer and personal friend of the de-
PENDANT, but this was not brought out
on examination by the defense, al
though a challenge finally was inter-
posed by the defense on the strength OF
Golcher's statement that he could not
try the case fairly. Heney denied the
challenge for minute and led Golcher
to say that he often went shooting with
Calhoun and played golf with Thorn
we'll Mutually. Objections were inter-
posed by the defense to these questions,
and Heney admitted the challenge after
explaining why he had questioned the
talesnian at all.
Il wanted to show" he said, why
they wanted to get him after he said
he couldn't try the case fairly"
Joseph z. Emmons. the second tales
man accepted, gave an interesting
statement of his views concerning the
duties of citizenship while his examina-
ton was in progress. This was after
he had been passed by the defense and
was under examination by Assistant
District Attorney O'Gara- He had pre-
viously stated that if money was paid
by the United Railroads to the super
vfsors he supposed Calhoun must have
known something about 1t. but that he
had no opinion on this subject and could
be a fair juror. He preferred, he said,
not to serve on the jury because of the
illness of his wife. When O'Gara took
I'D the inquiry Emmons made his state
of mind known in a somewhat extended
statement.
ut is the duty Of man to serve on
Jury" he said, IF he can honestly do
so. for decent men must serve in order
that Justice may be done. One does not
want TO go to war and be shot at, but
when war occurs il is ones duty to go
and fight I might be dishonest and
say that I had an opinion and get or,
but that would not be right. As to the
car strike think the union did not do
right by striking before their agree
meut was up. 1t was not the square
thing to do
sWould you accept the testimony of
The supervisors2" O'Gara asked.
SHOULD BE AMENABLE
AZ would not give the same weight
to the testimony of confessed crlnl-
nal that 1 would to that OF an honest
man Emmons answered. but still l
would give it the consideration L
Thought it deserved. I believe that
Calhoun should be as amenable to the
law as any one else, and l am sure that
know of no reason why | could not
try the case fairly to both sides
with Emmons passed to the jury box
the rest of the day moved along almost
without incident. The next four jurors
were disqualified on brief examinations
because of prejudice. They were
Charles A. Fey. Julius Gluck, Julius A.
Echorn and Charles H. Farrier. Frank
A. Cillev of $50 Church street, mas
ter plumber. was challenged by the
defense after he had said that he went
to the ferry depot to meet Heney on
the night of his return from the east.
Gilley also declared that he was in
favor OF every good government propo-
sition.
Other jurors disqualified were Mel
win c. Ferrier. Stuart Gayness, Ernest
J. Ghiselli. William II. Garretson and