The San Francisco call., 1909-01-20

was explained that the inadvertence
was not incident to any interjection OF
equal suffrage ideas into the method
of jury selection, but was due solely
to. the manner in which names were
chosen at random from the assessment
lists. The name was crossed off. and
so the venire was reduced to 14s.
Offers Good Excuse
Arthur Kidd, manufacturers agent
living at 80 Carl street, who advanced
a record of service in the national
guard as statutory cause for release
from jury service. was not fortified
with his certificate when he was first
called. He was told to present the
document for the courts inspection.
and at the afternoon session he pro-
duced it, neatly preserved in a frame
as large as an ordinary table top. The
court employed both hands and an ex-
ira onair in preparing to scan the i'm
posing sheet. The excuse was good
and Kidd got off.
Samuel Sussman of 119 Octavia
street pleaded his possession of Mar
ket street railway bonds as sufficient
reason for disqualification, but was
forced to await more extended ques-
tioning on the subject by the attor-
neys.
Paul H. Sturdivant was one Of sew
eral dozen veniremen who declared that
urgent personal business demanded
his attention. AS a member of the
firm of Sturdivant brothers, coal deal
ers, he said that all the routing of
wagons for delivery depended upon
by any one else. Asked why some
other member of the firm could not at
tend TO the routing temporarily Stur-
divaat answered that the duty de-
manded a precise knowledge of the
city, and then followed this by offer
ing to name for Judge Lawlor's benefit
"a hundred streets" that he had never
heard of The court declined the offer;
also he declined to excuse Sturdivant.
AT o'clock, with the courts exam
ination disposed Of Sc names were
placed in the jury box, the wheel was
twirled and nine names were drawn
to I'LL the vacant chairs in the jury
corner OF these, Samuel Sussman, a
member of the wholesale grocery firm
of Sussman, Wormser & Co., was the
first called for examination His pre-
vious declaration concerning his own
ership of Market street railway bonds
was not reverted to by A. A. Moore.
who took UP the examination for the
defense, but the talesman was asked.
instead, If he knew Francis j. Heney.
Sussman answered in the affirmative
and said that he had heard Heney speak
at banquet at the Fairmont hotel, but
did not remember whether subjects
relating to the United Railroads brib-
cry were discussed.
Aided Graft Prosecution
Have you ever been called upon to
contribute money or have you ever
contributed money in aid of the graft
prosecutions" asked Moore.
Yes, sir" answered Sussman, u
have"
Sussman qualified this statement a
minute later. The funds had not been
asked of him, he said. as an aid to
the graft prosecution, but in centrib-
uting money he had given it to a cam
paign fund which, he understood. was
in support of graft prosecution prin-
ciples.
DOM" asked Moore
No, SIR responded Sussman
Moore wandered from the subject.
but it drew him back, for his curiosity
was far from appeased. He limited at
1t again, and this time Sussman came
out voluntarily with the statement that
the money had been given to the Lin
coin Roosevelt league, of which, how
ever he was not member. Judge
Lawlor interrupted and cautioned
Moore to direct his questions to the
subject of whether the talesman had
any opinion as to the guilt or fnno-
cence Of the defendant, exhausting this
before going into other matters The
first question brought out the fact that
Sussman did have an opinion of a.
strong and hardy variety, which it
would take a considerable amount of
evidence to remove. and that he was
not without bias. Moore again evinced
a lively curiosity and sought with his
next question to relieve 1T.
''If you were in Mr.. Calhouns posi-
tion and he sat in your place in the
jury box with his mind in state like
your own, would you be willing to
accept him as juror to try your case ~
he asked
If your honor please" answered
Sussman. rising from his chair to ad-
uTeSS the court, ODJtCl 10 answering
that question because it is leading
Objects to Question
O'Gara came to the rescue and made
formal objection to the question on
the ground that it was improper unless
put on the trial OF challenge for
cause. This was sustained and relieved
Sussman of the necessity of barring his
views to the fullest extent. The tales
man answered minute later that he
would give the defendant the advan
tage of the presumption of innocence
attaching under the law. A minute
later Moore put the question In another
form and there was a brief wrangle be-