The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-01-22
CLASHES FEATURE
BIG GRAFT TRIAL
Sensational Charges OF Jury
Tampering Will Bring Search
ing Inquiry
Many TaIesmen Examined, 0nt
All Are Challenged for
Fixed Opinions

visors and was dismissed. although thS
defense made every effort TO retain hlui-
Carl A. Krough of s5oS Suffer street
was excused without examination %
cause of defective hearing Edwin VI
Goldstone a cigar store clerk. and Louis
A. Phillips corporation manager. de-
clared inability to consider the tesu-
mony of the supervisors and were cnal-
Ienged and excused on this ground -
Lawrie Young of 227 Clayton street.
machinery dealer, held a similar opih-
ion concerning the supervisors. whicn
he had formed from reading The reau-
ing he said included the Argon&ut'
News Letter, Town Talk and the Giooe-
Heney suggested the addition or the
Leader and the Oakland Tribune 10 the
list. Then he challenged.
BYINGTON IS REBUkED
Byington. who was conducting tho
examinations in behalf Of the detense'
brought down on himself sever
reprimand from the court during DIS
questioning of the next talesman. f.
W. A WaterhOuse. a wholesale hard
ware dealer Instead of following IN
structions from the court TO seek nrs1
for opinions concerning guilt or lnno-
eence, Byington was shooting MS cues
lions in every direction and getting
very few results. Several times the
court had ordered Heney to take up
the examination of a particular sub
iect without allowing Byington to nm
ish, and during the inquiry addressed
to Waterhouse he interrupted BylnS-
ton again.
This method must be curtailed, he
announced positively. These details
are unimportant. 1t is immaterial whom
the juror knows or whom he does not
know at this time. This is pure
waste of the courts time. The IN
quiry should seek first for direct or
implied bias, and may then so into
these other matters
None of this is unimportant,' began
Byington.
i've expressed my views" inter-
rupted Judge Lawlor shortly. Il in
struct counsel to take up those mat
tiers which may be made grounds for
challenge.
Waterhouse declared himself for the
punishment of the guilty. but said no
| believed Calhoun had been held up and
would take this opinion with him into
the Jury box He was challenged by
/ Heney and dismissed over Byington's
/ objection. Herman Poetsch. tanner.
was dismissed because he would not
/ believe the supervisors under oath, anu
Peter X. Kronnick, a carpenter, be-
cause his name did not appear on the
assessment roll
LAST TALESMAN EXCUSED
/ Samuel Well or 100 Pacific avenue,
a wholesale wooden ware merchant.
was the last talesman questioned dur
/ ing the afternoon session. and ne went
\ the way OF all the others. During bis
examination, however. a final clash was
precipitated as finale to the excite
\ ment- Of the. days proceedings. We'll
! expressed a friendliness for Calhoun.
\ styling him "a benefactor to the city
Repeat that answer. interrupted
! Stanley Moore as Heney was about TO
proceed to another question.
For the benefit of the newspapers"
suggested O'Gara sarcasticaIIy.
\ Yes, so it can be heard in the lobby"
added Heney.
A. y. Moore took violent exception to
these interpretations. charging that they
constituted deliberate misconduct He
ney asked the juror if his opinion OF
Calhoun was formed because he thought
CalhOuns activities after the fire had
placed money in his pocket as bust
nessman. To this the juror refused to
I acquiesce. The argument which fol-
lowed was furious for several minutes.
1 but ended, as did all the others with a
challenge. which was allowed.
The trial will be resumed at $50
o'clock this morning.