The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1921-10-04

y. IN "thtT N"IuS' wv I"'''' manu-
= i; lnflamcL"
A. Yes.
/ REORGANIZATION y A>slatan' fr",
! erutluu ATTORNEY Austin V. W"",:
! a. You hay" SAID the mind "i -"
: ,nb:ic IL influm-d from r.Tt'iins n"wS-
raper articles, Could You ;hu: rrt"iHS
! trc%r articles give tar Defendant i Ia'"
trial"
! A. No.
! .. could you serve on 4 jury in ;hc
! case?
y. No.
, =. Why"
\. because | have nN.d nI:d.
/ .. Who have YOU talked 10 concern
! lnE this:
+ \. Several people.
-. Naue some Of them.
y. EeNtun West.
AZ this point Mr.. Woods mad" an CT
fort Ia have the witness tell muIc names
bat he >'nuId not remember. He said h"
could not mention anything hut had
overheard crowds standing around ta!E-
.ng aud II seemed 10 him iE"H were
prejudiced against the dcIenGanI lie
finally Admitted that he could not en-
r!niu why ha said the minds OF the
people were iniiamed
8. X. johnson Tsstifes
s. * Johnson WAS tho next witness
.r,.leu. lie was asked about the sam"
Questions the preceding witness WAS lie
cd, lac u.td the opportunity cf hearing
What the public sentiment WAS "WinS
|, Lis business Of seeing hundreds or
people daily. lie said that Arc"rdin|
. W SUme OF the press articles 'hr CIV
officials should be hanged. lie "'':d II"
had heard people time and again say
q
United that the newspaper stories w"i"
! make no IMPRESSION upun him. when
asked by counsel Tor the defruSr /"
show that the puh,!c generally believed
what they read N the newspapers. w nrh
asked IL he beloved that the Defendant
would be given fair An d!mpai".'II trial
here he replied that lie did not believe
they could.
! ON cross-eXam!nation by Prosecutor
Bachman. Mr.. johnson could not name
a man he had talked To that led HIM |"
believe that public sentiment was
against the Defendant. You can re-
member what was said hut YOU cannot
remember who said i and where II Was
said. Tan YOU eXplain this" WIS aisle"
10y Prosecutor Bachman. lie could not
answer this. Attorney t"niu ASKED u
lac believed there were hundreds "t ren-
pie ike MIN, Epi pCli'NIHb S'S' N'''''N
they read in q newspaper. lie replied
that he did.
Attorney Nandlan asked him If the
reason why no paid so lttti" attention
10 the newspaper stories WAS tna' ne
had always taken IN active part IN p"!'
tiles and knew that this was i l".itir1i
tight. lie asked the witness II III" III
t.lligencrr and News did not take Il d'H-
erent view OF things and elaborate On
stories more than tho Register and Tcie-
graph. No they are all the same, Was
the reply. You did know that The IN
telligenccr and News were against the
administration: asked Attorney HAND
Ian. II can't say that" replied the Wit
ness for the defense. At this r"ini me
witness asked Attorney HandiAn II h"
wanted HIM to answer questions he
knew nothing about.
"pu yuu think that the defendant
would be given Il fair and Impartial
trial In Ohio county" was asked by Al
,turney Con!r.
II were In ThUmpson's boots |
would not want H." he replied. IL" SAID
il" did not think the defendant would
ho given i fair trial.
Prank miller.
The third witness WAS Frank MlIler'
who was asked about the same ques-
zion. He said that from the talk he
heard. the public believed mat II the
defendants were guilty they should be
sent 10 jail. When asked II he belly Ncd
;hcy would be given a fair trial, he was
VI the opinion that they would not stat
;ng that in his opinion there was t""
mach prejudice against Thompson. lie
was asked n number OF other questions,
.und the state objected 70 Attorney Hand
II, ,,.isn N ga 81 n
.ns him questions. Judge Robinson suS-
;aiEed the states objections.
z. Z. 6chafsr.
: t. L. Schafcr WAS next called. Tic
! said that he often heard people say
hat THESE fellows are guilt! ana
! should be sent over the road. When
asked II In hts opinion he believed the
public mind inflamed. hc stated no could
no KAY. but that publ" sentiment IS
unanimously against the drIrndah'S.
lie said he felt as though they could
not be given fair trial.
On crOS%-examinatlnn 10y Cnntif. the
/ witness finally left The stand, SIN OF
the opinion that there would be Nv
! fair trial. Schafer said tina; the way
= jury is selected. Il fa!r jury IN ms
mind. could not he selected. lie hnaliE
admitted, on cross examination. 'h"t He
did not know how u jury WAS drawn
He refused TO answer several questions
and was instructed 10y the ""uT; that
i,e must answer them. lie said thni
! I, was not impossible 10 secure an
! hottest jury without prcJuGi'e' hHt II
was not probable" When asked WHOM
ne had heard express an "rini"n. lie
said. Il will not mention any names
, He finally said H. cn"ri not recall The
names of persons he had heard express
AN opinion, but that hc would :int To-!
II he could. He admitted that lac WAS
y close rersnnn! friend &c j." hlhlcn
,.rl that for wears NJ hId offices AT
i,;ninr O'Rrirn and O'Rr:en while n
,nc insurance business Nc SAID -
could rive the defendants fair 'rId!
hu, doubted whether jury could b'
elected that would.
Councilman Cunning ham.
Councilman II. :. cunningham was
,,Nt called "lS.lhc svutimcr' for Il
AGAINST the defendant" was asked ~
Attorney James NJ. RITZ for the defense
after learning from the witness that M
\ had heard considerable discussion Of th'
\ c,se. Il could not answer this. hu
|, have heard opinions expressed III Wlici
\ they snid the whole d council Sh"ui'
\ T.. IN Jail" replied Councilman Gun
! ningham lie was then asked: is th"r'
h nry doubt In your r!nd whether 'h'
\ defendant could be given fair triai:
! NO" h. replied. lit Is not imNosStl!"
\ iut extremely difficult"
\ ON cross-examinatlnn I0unc.iman ca
\ uiuyham stated he heard a '"an nam,
Leadley. q former member 80 ~" III
department say: "Hur;"y 1hpmrsr