The San Francisco call., 1909-03-10

peremptorily challenged by the de-
fense. The examination was parallel
In many respects to that of Arthur H.
Voigt, who was disqualified by the
defense Monday afternoon. but though
the attempt by the defense to dismiss
Bennett was as bitter and even carried
10 greater length than in the former
case, Bennett was retained
IL developed at the beginning of the
inquiry that Bennett was something
OF a recluse, spending his time quietly.
readlng great deal of Christian Sci
ence literature and favorite books and
giving practically no attention to cur
lehS aHalrs. His knowledge Of the
graft prosecution was of most gen
erai nature and his answers showed
hihl 10 be as nearly an ideal Juror as
any taiesman who has been examined.
ne only opinion that he voiced during
ll.e a. exhaustive examination was to the
elect that he believed Ruef had re-
ceIved brfbes. He was hazv on t.,is
stating that it was nor c1ear ~ 5, 10,
mind whether Ruef had been convicted
ior taxing a bribe in the trolley matter
OF IN some other 1t was on this how
ever, that tae challenge interposed bv
the defense was based
JUROR Is RETAINED
Inc prosecution resisted the chal-
ienge, and the lengthy examination and
Gross examination which followed only
served 10 bear out the jurors declara-
tlons OF absolute fairness and impar-
Iallty Stanley Moore hammered at the
Juror Tor more than an hour in an en-
oeaVor to break down his Statements
ino lorce an admission Of bias sufficient
10 serve as a good ground of challenge
out 1alled TO win his point Some time
was taken up in arguments by the at
lorneys on the challenge itself. and then
moore returned once more to a repetition
OF questions which had been gone over
ana over again. Judge Lawlor was
forced in the end to interrupt the ex
animation and declare the challenge
disallowed
An equally Intellectual effort was made
oy the prosecution to disqualffy Thomas
Lockwood, a juror passed several davs
ago. on a reopening of his examina-
uon- A challenge for cause was inter
posed and an attempt was made to inn
peach certain testimony that he gave at
tHe tme OF his direct examination He
was asked by Heney II he had not made
certain statements of sympathy toward
1aihoun 10 a San Rafael friend named
Iooo"ln and to a bar tender named
august Riep in a Market street saloon.
lockwood stoutly denied that he had
mace any of the remarks attributed 10
him, and Riep, who was called as wit
ness, failed to substantiate the charge.
Inc effort TO disquailfy Lockwood on
challenge for cause was given up.
though the challenge was allowed to
stand for ruling BY the court, which
was adverse
Lockwood was the first man per
emptorily challenged by the prosecu-
ton and Bennett was the first to be
dismissed by the defense. The prosecu-
ton followed with challenges directed
at Joseph E. Emmons and Duncan d.
Hilder, and the defense excused. James
Il Arthur and James A. Godfrey. The
examination of talesmen was resumed
at once and continued until 5 o'clock
but no additional juror vas temporarily
passed to I'LL one of the six vacancies
which now exist
lhe talesmen examined and excused
curing the day were Charles w. Baird
William H. Armstrong, Otto f. Won
Rhein. Gustav c. Schwarz, Arthur LIE
Gallette, Arthur Baker. Charles E. Van
Dueser. William t. Beck, James Barron
John Bauman, Charles H. Beardsley.
Jacob Bernhard, John ]. Bell, John ]
Beaton, Adolph A Becker, Emil Basse
and Charles e. Benedict
A new special jury venire Of so has
DSen. ordered into court today