The San Francisco call., 1909-01-20

tween himself and Heney over its word
ing.
The law does not presume de-
fendant innocent" declared Heney, but
only makes it incumbent on juror to
presume him innocent until a verdict of
guilty is reached. If the law itself pre-
sumed man innocent we couldn't ar
rest man for crime and we couldn't
hold him in Jail if he failed to give
bonds
II object to that" asserted Moore.
Such a statement is so widely opposed
TO the law as to amount to miscon-
duct"
Judge Lawlor intervened, ordered
that the answer given by the talesman
be allowed to stand in the record and
instructed the attorneys for the people
to take up the examination of the tales
man as to his state of mind. Heney
asked only one question. Sussman an
swered that his opinion would influence
him to a great extent and that he could
not serve impartially. Heney chal-
lenged and the challenge was not re-
sisted.
Walter s. Pierce of $50 Fourteenth
street, piano maker, declared that he
knew his duty as juror, but that there
was a difference between knowing it
and following It, He had an opinion.
he said and might draw deductions
from 1t, however hard he might try to
set it entirely aside and act on the evil
dence alone.
II have no prejudice against Mr.. CAL
houn," he said, but my convictions are
pretty firm; unfortunately they are
positive. 1 would try to lay them aside,
but it would require pretty strong evil
dence."
Fails to Challenge
Stanley Moore, who had been ques-
tioning this talesman in Behalf of the
defense. failed to challenge on this
showing and again Judge Lawlor
interrupted and asked the prose-
cution to proceed with the ex-
told Heney that his construction
of the evidence probably would be col
ored by his present convictions, and
Heney interposed a challenge. Stanley
Moore resisted the challenge. but be-
fore submitting it asked only a single
question-whether Pierce could give the
defendant the benefit of the presump-
alon OF innocence. Pierce answered
yes. Judge Lawlor promptly allowed
the challenge on the strength of the
entire examination
Delbert r. Walker an employing
barber, with a shop in Clay street
near kearny, was the third man called
ana was still under examination when
adJournment was taken for the night.
STANLEY Moore stuck directly to the
SUBJECT or Walkers opinion concerning
the question of guilt or innocence of
ealhoun and finally passed walker for
cause. 1t developed that the talesman
mad slight opinion which he could
iay aside, and that while he had heard
OF immunity being given Abe Ruef he
hau no convictions concerning the
propriety of the circumstances and had
never heard of immunity being given
the boodling supervisors
IL was on cross-examination by
Heney that 1t was brought out for the
nrst time that Walker was conduc-
tor for the United Railroads for a
year and half before the fire and for
about four months afterward De-
spite this, and the fact that he was
discnarged from the cofnpany's employ.
walker held opinions that were unus-
uai under the circumstances. He fa-
vored the attitude of Calhoun and the
united Railroads in regard to the car
strike, and believed, he said, that the
carmen had received sufficient pay.
Ihis led Heney to draw Walker out
at length. The latter said that he be-
ieved the supervisors received bribes,
put that he had no idea who paid them
and that this would be the only ques-
ton he would try if selected as a
juror.
Examination Incomplete
Heney's examination was still incom-