The Sentinel=record., 1913-01-14
JURY TAKEN IN JOHNSTON CASE
TAKING OF EVIDENCE WILL BE GIN IN cIRcuMsTANTlAl Evt-
 DENcE CASE TO-DAY.

Defendant Appears Not the Least Bit
 Disturbed as to the Outcome of The Trial in Which he is Chare-
 ed With Burder.
 J. B. Fordyce.
 A. H. Moore.
 A. J. LoweTy.
 J. l.. Waycaster. J. A. Peyton.
 D. Adams.
 N. A, Diccus.
 Pate Hite
 Oscar A. Stearns.
 Charles Webb,
 c. S. McClard.
 The above twelve men constitute the jury which will today sit to hear evidence in the case wherein George Johnston is charged with first-degree murder for the alleged killing of Car ol Shepman, in the htis country about | two months ago.
 That the jury was selected on the first day of the hearing of the case, | and that objection to returning a first-degree murder on circumstantial evidence did not play greater part | in nindering the progress of the case. was the surprise of all the court at | tendants.
 Ten jurors were selected, from the regular panel of "A jurors, an unusua: | incident Two of these were latef released, however, and even at that | eight of the regular panel are left on the jury that is to try this case. Johnston, the accused, sat in court alone. His brother from Yell county | is expected to be nere today. and to
 remain with him during the progress of the trial Johnston appeared in court looking most bouyant for a man accused of murder, and on trial for his life. There was nothing of the flippant about him, but he sat quietly and without the least of agitation, be- side his counsel Judge Tnurston P. Farmer, while the various jurors were being selected.
 | If Johnston fears any prejudice in
 the trial of the case, 1t was not evi- denced in the selection of the jury.
 Not a single time did he volunteer
 that this or that juror should be ex- cused under the perematory challenge
 privilege, and Judge Farmer did not excuse peremptorally, but two or
 those who qualified, while the state, with but half as many challenges to spare, use four
 | Prosecuting Attorney Witt started
 the examination of the jurors for the state, but later turned the situation
 over to Deputy George F. Whiting
 ton. who conducted the cause of the | state at the afternoon session Of l court.
 There are a number of witnesses, and all but a very few have been | found. Some had removed from the county, and Sheriff Williams was us- ing every effort to get every one of l them.
 When the jury was completed late yesterday afternoon, Judge Gotham
 called the jurors before him, admon. i ished them not to discuss the case with any persons, and then permit | ted them to separate for the night. 1 This privilege will probably not be granted tonight, though there is a l probability that the case will not take as long time in trial now as it
 appeared before the jury was drawn. An unusual incident Tn connection | with the examination of talesmen yesterday was the fact that so few prospective jurors stumbled over the I question as to whether they would
 convict on circumstantial evidence. Judge Thurston F. Farmer, for the defense, offered an objection at the outset of the case to the manner Tn which Prosecutor Witt put the ques-
 ton as to the qualification of jurors The prosecutor asked if the juror had ! conscientious scruples against capita | punishment and then put as sepaT-
 ate question if he would return yer
 dict of guilty, where the punishment
 was death in case dependent wholly
 on circumstantial evidence. | Judge Farmer urged that the state
 had ao right to distinguish in exam
 ing the jurors between whether they
 would convict on circumstantial evi- 1 dence, or whether they would convict on direct evidence. He argued that
 when juror stated he would return a
 verdict of guilty where the punish ment was death, if supported by the law and the evidence, the juror had 1 qualified as juror, and therefore the
 distinguishing feature as to eireum-
 stantial evidence should not be asked.
 Judge Gotham overruled the objec- ton and Judge Farmer had the steno- grapher note that the same objection | obtained in each of the examination of prospective jurors.
 But five of the thirty-eight pTospec- tive jurors examined yesterday swore 1 they would not convict on cimcum-
 staatial evidence in capital offense cases. They had qualified to serve in every other way. Then there were the usual quota who would not con vict in any case where the penalty was death, and also the usual quota
 that dad formed and expressed opin-
 ions that it would require evidence