Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1915-02-25
JURY COMPLETED TUESDAY
TRIAL COMMENCED TUESDAY
N-STATEMENTS
BY STATE AND DEFENSE.

ox o4A1h AMI O1I 6Ivo6s
Monday morning the case of the State
vs. Frank Hye, on charge of murder
Of Alma Hye, wife of defendant, en-
October 4, last, was called for trial at
900 clock a. m. A. 8. Hardy was en-
tered as associate counsel to assist w.
N. Scales in the defense of the case.
The witnesses, go or more were present
and after having been sworn, upon
motion of counsel for the defense were
excluded from the court room during
the trial of the case. Mr.. and Mrs.
Litchfield, mother and father of the
deceased, and Tom Hye, of Spokane,
brother of defendant were permitted to
remain in the courtroom. The defense
objected to more than one witness for
the state remaining in the room but on
request of the state, L. A. Painter, a
brother-in-law of the deceased wife of
defendant was permitted to remain, as
having been one who has assisted
materially in gathering evidence for
the state.
Jury Completed by Tuesday.
All Of Monday and Tuesday forenoon
were consumed in selecting jury and
the jnrymen as finally selected to hear
the case and render verdict are as
follows:
Barney Steubbers, Greencreek, farm
er; j. H. johnson, Ferdinand, farmer;
John Tollman, Westlake, farmer; John
F. Oliver, Grangeville, farmer; w. G.
Hanson, Grangeville, farmer; E. w.
Barnum, Clearwater, liveryman; w. j.
Braybrook, Grangevine, farmer; T. s.
MeCune, Joseph, farmer; L. G. Adams,
Caribel, farmer; Albert Gregg, Grange
vile, farmer; G. N. Mclaughlin, Cot
tonwood, liveryman, Peter Aschenbren-
ner, Ferdinand. farmer.
OF about go jurymen summoned and
present, As were examined before the
jury was finally completed. A large
number were challenged and dismissed
for cause, IA in all. The state when
the panel was finally complete accept
ed the jury as constituted and on its
second and tenth peremptory challenges
accepted the jury, exercising only of
the 10 perentory challenges which the
law gives. The defense, however,
used all of its ten. Only men of the
panel first selected were retained when
the jury was finally complete.
In questioning the jurors, the state
invariably asked every jurymcn drawn
from the box to take the place Of
the one dismissed for cause or excused
peremptorily, whether he considered
the offense of, adultery any more re-
prehensible in a. woman than in man,
and also put the question as to whether
if the defendant should endeavor to es-
tablish that he had discovered his wife
in criminal relations with another
whether that would influence a verdict
on the part of the juror.
The defense very diligently endeavor
ed to ascertain whether the jurors were
acquainted with any of the Litchfield
family and also asked if any of the
jurors had been approached to sign 0
petition to be presented to the board
OF commissioners to raise funds for the
prosecution of the case.
Trial Commences Tuesday.
After the jury was empaneled just
before noon Tuesday, the court ad
journed until 200 O'Clock p. m. A
that hour, it again convened for the
trial of the case, and upon the motion
of Judge James F. Aishie, who is en-
gagged in the trial of the cause to as
sist the prosecution, requested recess
of half or three quarters of an hou
to examine the exhibits in the case q
he had had no previous opportunity t.
examine the same heretofore. An hou
and five minutes were consumed il
this and then the attorneys wer
brought into court and directed b.
Judge Steele to proceed with the case
Statement by James F. Ailshie.
The statement of the prosecution wa
made by Judge Ailshie, and was briei
giving short recital concerning tn
relationship between the defendant an
deceased wife from time of their MAJ
riage until her decease and mentione