Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1910-02-24
NO JURY AS YET
IN BROWN CASE
Lively Tilt Between Opposing
Counsel in Action to
Break Viii.
SEVERAL CHALLENGES MADE
Qualifying Questions Put TO Talcsmcn
All Hinge on Their Views OF Rights
or Legitimate Children.

Two jurors were excused on peremp-
tory challenges in Judge Rltchie's d.
vision OF the Third district court this
morning, where the action TO break the
VIII of the late Senator Arthur l.
Brown is brought by the children of
Mrs. Anna NJ. Bradley, Arthur Brown
Bradley and Martin Montgomery Brad
Icy. The first juror to be excused on
the peremptory challenge OF the plain
tiff was Joseph 4. Davis. an Ice cream
dealer OF this city. The challenging or
MT Davis did not appear to be because
of any bias or prejudice toward the
cause of plaintiff in his mental ntt-
tude affecting the action at bar, but In
dicated the desire of the attorneys for
Mrs Bradlcys children TO secure as
jurors men of family-fathers OF chill
dren. Mr.. Davis testified that he was
married. but did not have any children.
and though passed for cause by both
sides. he was the first man excused by
the plaintiff on peremptory challenge.
The second talesman TO leave the box
on peremptory challenge was Chris
tian Berger, a farmer OF Salt Lake
county This time the peremptory was
exercised by the defense, and WAS pre-
sumably upon the ground that Mr.
Berger had expressed himself strongly
as to obligations due to illegltimate
children on the part OF the parents or
such children. Berger was challenged
for cause by the attorneys Tor the de-
fense yesterday afternoon, but Judge
Ritchie denied the challenge. Justus
Jungk was also challenged for cause
by Judge King at yesterday afternoons
fhiQ cha 1llDpo
iained. In place of Mr.. Jungk. John S.
Page. 81 years old and the father of
two children, WAS passed for cause by
the plaintiffs He was also examined
and passed by the defense at this
mornings session.
Oliver Hodgson was interrogated by
both sides as to his attitude on the
sacredness of the marriage relation. and
as 10 the rights of children born out or
wedlock. His answers seemed TO be
satisfactory to both sides.
TILT BETWEEN COUNSEL.
sharp tilt between counsel fol-
lowed the question addressed by Judge
King TO David Archibald as to wheth-
er the talesman knew the mother of
the children. Mrs. Bradley. and her
husband, Clarence Bradley. Judge
Powers objected to the question on the
ground that 1t tended to leave the i'm
preston that Bradley was still the
husband of Mrs. Bradley.
Counsel for the defense knows"
said Judge Powers. that Mrs. Brad
ley was divorced from Mr. Bradley
four or five years ago. and l submit
that the question was put with the in
tention of prejudicing the minds of
the jury on this point"
II did not know It," replied Judge
King
Thereupon Judge King put the same
question, using the word former" be-
fore husband "from whom Mrs. Brad
ley claims to have been divorced" /
Judge Powers said that he did not |
wish to take up the whole Bradley |
matter and thrash it out before this |
court unless forced to do so by de-
fendant's counsel. 'But II defendant |
wishes to drag 1t all in again. I am |
prepared to meet him"
Counsel for plaintiff seems to be |
the one who Is dragging the old mat
ter in said Judge King, land l !
think this is just one of counsers |
bluffs"
IT generally carry my bluffs |
when 7 make them in court"
said Judge Powers, and the incident |
passed.
H. C. Wallace was examined by |
plaintiff, He claimed to have no fixed |
opinion as to the paternity of the