The San Francisco call., 1909-04-08
Defense EAGER
TO PLACE THIS
MAN IN THE BOX
TaIesman Who Impressed the
Calhoun Attorneys as the
Ideal Juror for Them
Prosecution Challenges With
Success Contractor Who Ac-
quilted Ruefs Lawyer

The $50 mark has been reached in the
number Of talesmen examined in the
Calhoun trial. more than a week has
elapsed since any juror has passed sub
5ect to peremptory challenge. and still
the hoodooed vacancy exists in the jury
box. The new venire Of So brought into
court yesterday morning, has so far
proved no more productive of real
jury material than any of the others
recently summoned. and it was well
tested yesterday by the examination
of Is Of its members. The old story
was repeated: none OF the Is qualified
SERVED ON MURPHY JURY
one or two jurors questioned yester-
Gay managed to worry the attorneys
for a considerable length Of time. but
they were Of the class which is highly
acceptable TO one side and equally un-
acceptable to the other and in each
instance they were eventually excused
on challenge for cause Frederick
Heitmeyer Of PA Twenty third avenue
was the best EXAMPLE of this particu-
lar kind. He served on the jury which
acquitted Frank ]. Murphy on the
Ruef case. and seemed just as willing
10 qualify for the Calhoun jury as
The defendants attorneys were anxious
10 have him qualify.
DEFENSE WANTED HIM
There was no doubt about this
anxiety on the part Of Calhoun's coun-
sci TO accept Heitmeyer. Attorney
Lewis Byington, who examined him for
the defense. passed him just as soon
as he could possibly get over the
necessary list Of formal questions. and
The succeeding efforts Of Assistant Dis
trict Attorney O'Gara TO establish
grounds for disqualification were con-
tested at every step
Heitmeyer is a builder. who formerly
kept q delicatessen store. He said
he did not believe in immunity. but
had very hazy idea regarding the
graft cases for a man who had served
As juror In one of the graft trials.
He testified that he had no opinion con-
corning the guilt or innocence Of the
defendant, Calhoun, and that while he
believed the supervisors OF the Schmitz
board 10 have been guilty Of taking
bribes he had no idea a to whether
these bribes included payment in the
trolley franchise matter
Heitmeyer said that he had an opin-
ion that Ruef was guilty, but didn't
know that Ruef had been convicted il
connection with the trolley deal. He
also said he believed that there wa.
not sufficient evidence TO convict Tires
J. Ford Of any part in the United Rail.
roads bribery but ne did not know
that Calhoun was jointly indicted with
Ford in the case on trial
CHALLENGE Is ALLOWED
o'Gara finally challenged on the
strength OF the entire examination
and raised the point that Heitmeyel
had served on another jury within, q
year. The challenge was resisted by
the defense, but was allowed by Judge
Lswlor on the ground last mentioned
by OGara.
John a Lennon Of 91s Eddy street. Z
grocer, declared that he had no lean.
ing in favor OF either one side or the
other, but wanted to be excused because
he feared his business would suffer
u he was required TO remain on the
jury for considerable length OF time
The latter plea received little consid.
GRAFTON from the attorneys, but Lennon
added later that he was opposed to the
immunity given the supervisors anC
thought the man who took q bribs
much worse than the man who gave
one. He was challenged by the prose.
cution and excused on his own state
ment that he could not act fairly K
both sides.
Other jurors who were examined yes
terday and excused were William A
Dunbar, Edward Livingston. Edware
Ianthier, Walter P. Laufenbere. Mil
ton H Landers, Charles H. Langpaap
William T. Lehman, Charles Lennon
Walter Leonard, William d. Leabv
Herman B. Livermore. Harvey W. La
scelle and Charles F. Libby.