The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1913-04-11
Jury Is Selected to Try Case
Against o. G. Murray For
Opening Picture Theater
on Sunday.
WITNESSES TESTIFY
HE CHANGED COIN
Mayor Overrules Objections
of Prosecuting Attorney
Keller Charges Violation of
State Law.

stare Law
At the trial Of Omer G1MurTay IN
city court, charged with violating sths
Sunday amusement hw the state 10
day. apparently aksunpted 10 hiring
en- q the Murretts theater hst Sum-
day for the esliegedsuaxpose-of or osntrfb-
ut1ng to charity. wass msrefy sn ee@-
ing wedge for the operatton or sbesmc-
tion picture theaters In Richnonaarsg-
ulnxiy on SunAayn-
To establksh this point Prosscutnr,
Keller asked Mr.. MWgAy n Il wAs not
q fact that IN . onverssf1ra 'Hurxzyi
and Keller had engaged In af . res
taurant st noon today that ehasfurD4
had said he would NOT. .cars - ~esezv-
thing vss opn m ~Racnmona soa s<an-
days" The deeensas made oA3srktunso
this question. but tke mayor ruled ehaf
Mr.. Murray coald answer II and the
witness then stated that he had made
a remark TO that effect
In stating the case 10 the fury.
Prosecuting Attorney Raaler explained
that the Murrette theatsr bad been
operated on Sunday by o. c. Murray
and his employees IN direct violation
of the state law /. after having been
warned previously not to open the
theater for the purpose Of showing
motion pictures. The state laws wsre
read and explained to the jury. The
action OF Mr.. Murray I'm reopening the
theatsr after his manager and opera
tor had been arrested was termed as
being in defiance Of the state laws
and Of the police OF the city.
In the testimony this morning. Pa
trolmen George StaabacA and Henry
westenberg stated that thsy had seen
money placed IN q tardenier near the
door and that Mr.. Murray had given
change to persons VINO had Arger
coins than was usually charged for
admission.
Two young women testified that
they attended the performance and.
thinking that the admission Yns tan
cents. one Of them left two danes on
the table to pay for both Of them
Mr.. Murray returned one Of thesdimsa.
saytng. "It 10 emily five.centA~
In the testimony given. thks ,ek1sr-
noon by o. @. Murray. the nd
operator OF the Mursettes Thsatee. ths
expenses for giving the p96cEnnss
did not exceed ts. hoiudtng cost q
operating uaach4nss,f n1hks. aAvesx4p-
ing and signs which swere placed IN
front Of the theatnr. The srnoaoyes
who worked Sunday, GaGno0 dd asol
with the understandingsthat thU were
TO receive no pey-
Did you Gfye anytothers mpUY 1or
ting Attorney Keller. Attorney .Iyram
Robbins oo3sctede to. the quasszca 0l
thu grounds that n had no beaF1ng N
deciding. tAs. ease. ...
-kr. Murray, yousdou,t have 70 an-
swer any of thoss.Qnsstins- rst1nsA.
the mayor. At|no.ttme ouslng tha.txS-
al did the mayer overNsule. .ohtnr31cns
of the attornsys for the dsssnsa
In the examinatio, MOI oas afsthe
jurors. the man was. asked II hs,hnd
any opinion on the matter which
could be changed BY the evidsaee In
the case. He replied that hs hAd. but
that he might change his mind.
"It isn't q question Of might change
your mind" said the mayor. but VIII
you change your mind?'
The final selection Of the jury was
as follows:
Thomas McManus. A W. Gregg. II.
w. Gilbert, T. ". Hadley. 1. II. John
son. ]. p. Chenoweth. Charles II. Ha-
ner. s. w. Bricker, A n. Roberts,
Frank W. Druitt, w. J. Chenoveth.
Frank M. Clark
In referring 70 q conversation be-
curing since Sunday inthe City Res
taurant the prosecuting attorney ask
ed the defendant. "Mr. Murray. did
you not say to me that you were In
favor Of every thing IN Richmond be
ing kept open on sundayr
Mr.. Murray refused to admit entire
ly that he made the remark but stated
that he might have said that He ask
ed the courts permission to state the
entire conversation which took place
between heand Mr.. Keller
During the selection OF the jury.
Mayor Zimmerman, acting al Judge.
refused TO dismiss six OF the Jurors
| whom Prosecuting Attorney Keller
asked to be dismissed on the grounds
that they were not competent to act
as Jurors because OF the fact that their
minds were influenced previous to the
trial and their opinions could not be
changed. The mayor failed 20 find
grounds. he stated at the time. for the
dismissal of Jurors who adr 4tted that
they were pretpdiced In fr for Of the
defendant or that they fought that
the state law ON the case. was an un-
Just one
A druggist was question: led by Keller
as 10 his competencs - serve an r