The San Francisco call., 1909-04-07
TALESM[N FAIL
TO QUALIFY IN
CALHOUN CASE
Sixty Challenges for Cause AL
lowed Since Last Juror
Was Passed
Defense Does Not Object TO
Those Who Express Prejudice
Against Prosecution

More than so talesmen have been
examined and two special venires have
been exhausted since the last juror in
the Calhoun case was accepted subject
70 peremptory challenge. and still there
is no sign of filling the one vacancy
remaining. A dozen talesmen re-
mained for examination out of the thir
tyhrst special venire when court con-
vened yesterday morning, and before
No afternoon session was held. A new
panel of so has been ordered for this
morning.
George T Knnk. the talesman who
was under examination Monday after
noon. was disqualified in a few minutes
yesterday morning. He said he had
decided opinion as TO the guilt or in
nocence of the defendant and would
not want TO accept a juror in his own
frame of mind were he in the defend
ants place. He was challenged by the
defense. as was also Frank J. Klimm,
a plumber, who had a decided opinion
and did not believe he could act inn
partially. Fred A. Klein of 4I4 Fred
erick street was excused because his
name did not appear on the assessment
roll.
CONFIDENCE IN PROSECUTION
Richard Kuhn of 76 Hancock street.
a furniture and mill man, asserted that
he believed thoroughly in the policy Of
the graft prosecution and admired the
stand taken by the newspapers which
have supported the prosecutions fight.
Kuhn was excused on challenge of the
cefense.
Thomas G. Knight. manager of the
Thomas. knight estate company, was
strongly prejudiced in Calhoun's favor
and Earl Rogers of the defense seemed
to want him badly, in spite of his
opinion.
But could you not put aside your
opinion and find the defendant. Mr..
I Calhoun. guilty if the evidence should
prove beyond all reasonable doubt that
he was guilty?" asked Rogers, per-
suasively.
NO sir" was the prompt answer. i
would not find him guilty under any
circumstances.
ROGERS CAUSES SURPRISE
Instead of challenging the talesman
F in the face of this answer, Rogers
passed him TO O'Gara.
I'm surprised that you want to keep
2
tically I'll challenge him.. The
challenge was allowed
Frederick Klopper, retired, and Wal
ter V. Koch. master plumber, eX-
pressed decided opinions and remained
in the jury box for only couple of
minutes each. Gustave Lachman. a
furniture dealer, succeeded in puzzling
the attorneys by the apparent contra
dictions of his answers to questions
regarding his state of mind. At first
he was hostile to the defendant and a
minute later he didn't like the attitude
of the prosecution. The attorneys for
( the defendant interposed a challenge
which was allowed without protest.
TALESMAN CHANGES FRONT
Conrad kissing, a retired farmer.
said he was opposed to immunity and
would not believe the testimony of the
I former supervisors; F. H W. Koenig,
an architect, said that he would not
convict Calhoun under any circum-
stances, and John /. Kidwell of 7S0
Dolores street had a strong opinion
and did not believe in immunity All
were excused.
I'm prejudiced on account Of the
car service we get down in Howard
street" asserted Albert Knowles, pres
ident of the Sierra lime and cement
company.
Knowles explained, however, Ihdl ne
wouldn't convict Calhoun because of
the prejudice aroused by this incon-
venience of car service, and then swung
entirely the other way.
QUIBBLE OVER CHALLENGE
Stanley Moore announced that he
would not deny a challenge if one
were interposed by the prosecution.
and passed the juror. OGara wanted
10 ask some further questions before
challenging, and this caused an objec-
ton which almost precipitated trouble.
I'VE have said we would not deny
a challenge" declared Moore. ''and this
is merely a waste of time
We'll. I don't know whether you viii
remain of the same opinion" answered
O'Gara
There was continuation of the
bubble for several minutes. but O'Gara
persisted in his questions until he got
what he was after, and then chal-
fan0pd