The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1911-10-31
CHALLENGES DENIED
TO M'NAMARA
DEFENSE
JUDGE eoRDWELL CHARGES
THAT COUNSEL is TRYING TO
ciRcuMvENT RULINGS.

Los Angeles, Oct. 30.--Judge Walter
Bordwell accused the defense In the
Mcnamara murder case Today OF trying
to circumvont his rulings and rejected
two challenges against talesmen which
formed the basis Of his supposition.
He also refused to the defense the
privilege of challenge against "A Juror
who said he would not convict "A prIs.
oner In Il capital case on circumstan-
tal evidence alone. holding that this
challenge was available only to the
state. Under these rulings the jury
box contained. at the close of court
tonight, three men passed for cause by
both sides In addition to the four 40
qualified when the days session OPP
ened.
+ To both Of the courts main rulings
today Attorney Clarence s. Darrow
took exception In behalf of his client.
James b. Mcnamara. who III on trial
for the murder Of Charles J. Haggerty.
victim of the Los Angeles Times ex-
plosion year ago.
For the first time since the trial
was begun. the defense brought into
court today one OF it's investigators to
confront a talesman; r. II. Fitzger-
aid. "A, fledgling attorney. took the
stand after General w. Johnson. a re-
tired superintendent Of an Iron and
brass foundry. had said he had not
told anyone 1t was his belief that the
Times was blown up by union men
and had not talked to anyone about
the case Fitzgerald testified that he
visited johnson to obtain some sta
tlstical information and later talked to
him about the Times explosion. He
could not remember what was said, he
testified, without referring to his re-
port.
Attorney Darrow announced that
Fitzgerald probably would Testify fur
ther tomorrow.
Johnson Is the man. challenge
against whom. for implied bias on the
ground thA he is opposed to convic-
tion In cases involving the death pen
atty. was refused by the court spe-
officially on the ground that the de-
fense had no right to prefer IT. Chal-
lenges against A. e. Winter and Wal
ter y. Frampton. on the same ground
also were denied. but these met the
disapproval OF the court as being in
tended To circumvent "A previous ruling
that the men were not disqualified be E
cause Of their expressed opinions that
james II. Mcnamara was guilty of
murder.
Darrow Exespts.
Both men had contradicted them
selves under examination by opposing G
counsel. the court pointed out. The
court ruled all that they derived their
opinion entirely from common notori-
ETY.. public rumor or statements in
public journals, all of which are ex-
cepted by law from disqualifying a
talesman. TO this Attorney DarrnN
excepted declaring that Winters
opinion concerning strikes and strikers
was based on personal knowledge
Winter having testified thats he, as an
employer. had replaced a striker al
one time and was pelted with bad
eggs and other missiles.
OF the challenges against Winter
and t'rampton, the court said:
THE latter challenge of the de-
fense, which is now under considera
ton, amounts To an effort on the part
of the defense to render ineffective
the courts ruling disallowing the pre-
yious challenge. This is whai
prompted the defense 10 lodge the sec
| Ond challenge. It Is not IL legitima IL
proceeding and cannot be permitted
1t may well be doubted If the law ever
| intended to give the defendant in 1
case such as that before the bar tn,
right to challenge for conscientious
opinions which might preclude tn,
finding Of a verdict Of guilty In ;
capital case. The reports of case
/ show no Instances of such proceed
1