The San Francisco call., 1910-12-07
SMELL JURY SWORN
FOR PERJURY TRIAL
Defense Seeks to Show Per-
secution by Perrin and
Justify Testimony
Examination of Veniremen De-
velops Prejudice Against
Both Sides

Whether Charles P. Smell was being
prosecuted by the United States gov
ernment or prosecuted by DR.. E. B.
Perrin, whether Detective William j.
Burns should be believed under oath
and whether the veniremen were pref
udtced against United States District
Attorney Robert I. Devlin and his as
sistant. Alfred P. Black, were ques-
tions asked yesterday In the United
states district court while a jury was
being secured to try Smell on perjury
charge, growing out of his testimony
In the trials OF Perrin and John A. Ben
son for land frauds
Smell had been in the employ of Per-
rim but gave testimony against him
and Benson, materially aiding in
bringing about their conviction Ben
son served his term and then died, but
Perrin secured a new trial and then
succeeded in having the attorney gem
eral order Devlin to dismiss the case
against Perrin. The latter contended
that Smell had sworn falsely and sue
ceeded in having him indicted this
year.
Judge Robert S. Bean of Oregon is
sitting for Judge De Haven in the
present trial and United States District
Attorney Samuel Platt of Nevada rep
resents the government. Neither Dew
lin nor Black appeared in the court
room yesterday. Bert Schlesinger and
Louis P Boardman are the attorneys
for Smell.
Schlesinger questioned the venire-
men to ascertain whether they would
be Influenced by Perrin's wealth and
whether they were prejudiced against
Devlin, Black and Burns.
Samuel H. Friend. a jeweler at 16
Geary street, said he would not give
much credence to any testimony by
Burns.
CHALLENGE FOR PREJUDICE
George I. Kinney. an electrical goods
manufacturer at 604 Mission street,
and Salter G. Sachs. an insurance
agent, 400 Kohl building, also testified
that they would be reluctant to take
Burns testimony.
"Supposing Heney was on one side
and Burns on the other, which would
you believer asked Schlesinger of
Sachs
'Heney." replied the venireman.
G. W. Tozer was challenged by P1att
after he had asserted that he was
prejudiced against Benson and Perrin.
Joseph P. Duggan, an insurance and
real estate man, admitted having ex
pressed an opinion of Doctor Perrin
that was unfavorable, and said that
he had not changed his opinion.
"a jury Of IL men found him guilty.
and that was enough for me-" said
Duggan.
Platt proceeded TO ask II Duggan
would not change his opinion II it were
shown that the conviction had been
secured on perjured testimony and
Duggan retorted that 1t looked as
though the present proceedings were
prompted by the vindictivenesS of Per-
rim.
IT am of the opinion that Doctor
Perrin is not prosecuting this case, but
prosecuting" said he. Duggan was ex-
cused, as was John Bilfer a contractor,
whose opinion OF Benson was affected
by reason of having met him once.
A B. Johnson, hardware merchant
said that he sympathized with Smell
and understood that SMELL had been in
destitute circumstances because Perrin
had not paid his wages. Johnson and
c. A. Cline, retail jeweler more in
tent on selling his Christmas stock
than trying Snell were excused.
TWELVE JURORS SELECTED
case. They are: II. s Bonifeld, real
estate; Edward P. SIosson, manufac-
turer's agent; A. r. Swain, mining; W.
F. Aldrich, accountant; D. H. Lohsen
Oakland, retired; John McC. Anderson.
fire insurance; Edward e. Gillon, lum-
Der; Oren A. Giles, agent; George M.
Rolph, sugar manufacturer; John H.
Spring, Oakland, banker; Frank A. Gil
ley, heating and plumbing; A. W. Bald
win, retired
After Platt had read the Indictment
against Smell an adjournment was
taken until 10 o'clock this morning.