Year: 1871

first days proceedings. At this time there were
In the court room only about seventy-1ve persons
jurors, reporters and counsel; but one by one new
corners commenced to enter, and gradually the va
cant space was occupied. The NTH and last juror
entered at ten minutes after ten. thus making the
set complete-the five that were sworn In yesterday
Accommodations were provided at the Astor House
last night by the Court for the benefit Of the jury
as to prevent any opportunity OF conversing with
outsiders In regard to the


MERITS AND PROBABILITIES OF TIE TRIAL.
and to enable these i've men 70 keep their minds
uncontaminated and above bias.


THE PRISONER.


Foster entered at the usual tune, twenty minutes
past ten and took his accustomed place beside his
counsel 1t was noticeable that on this occasion he
did not wear the "bracelets," but had his nands
perfectly free. AS on former DAYS, he wore that
same stod look OF indlfference-not brutal indlfe-
renee, but an appearance as II he failed to realize
fully the awful situation in which he stood.


Judge Stuart and District Attorney Garvin en-
tered the court room at half-past ten and shortly
after the Court commanded silence aud the roll call
OF jurors was heard, the solitary i've answering
vigorously as their names were called.


The first Juror summoned was Mr.. Hudson Cary,
OF 40 Catharlne street. Mr. Cary was unfortunate
enough to have


EXPRESSED DBCIDED OPINION
In the case, consequently had to foreg0 the honor
OF serving as q juryman. Several others were re-
jeCted, having formed opinions.


Mr.. Adam Muir had read OF the MURDER but had
no opinon-only an impression.


At this point Messrs. Hendrlckson and Norton
the two first jurors sw0rn-were appointed triers
under the rule OF favor and took the oath.


The reason Of juryman's being competent while
having an mpressiol on his mind as to the guilt or
innocence Of the accused was briefly argued by re-
sPeStys counsel and the tes deSiaeS a. y ,1 IN favor sr
aio9 IN acooraanoe with The Evidence
He had heard conversations in reference to the
murder; he had no impression in regard to Mr.
mitted the deed, whoever that might be; he had no
impression either for or against the prisoner; his
uaTe Was wanted the COUNSEL on the other
side 10 ask the Juror direct questions, not to pro-
f. The tourt~i think both the gentlemen have In
dulged pretty freely this regard and IN address,
ing an Intelligent man think It Objectionable.


THE QUESTION OF IMPRESSIONS,


and contenhed that o man holding an impression
either one way or the other should be properly DIS
qualified from serving.


the ar9ament ~ Of the defence. lie SAID an m
preston cannot disqualify man from serving
impartialy. He said that mere impression
Of tragedy like the Putnam murder In the
newspapers was as transient on the mind as
away and left the mind in Its normal state unbias
sed ano without prejudice. lie quoted from ..Coe-
While Savina entertained inpressions serving On
jurles. He argued that even If q Juror had boen
man would De entirely competent to sit In judgment
He might just as impartialIy act as he was In total
Ignorance Of the matter, Knowing that Foster
killed Putnam might not that Juror find as readily
II the evldeace warranted II, that the killing was
justlfableS He continued at some length.


the Court charged that It was for the trcrs to
Judge whether the jurors mind was In that state OF
disinterestedness that would warrant MIS- being per-
mitted TO serve or not. They, the trierS. should
TRoroslTioNs ADVANCED BY COUNSEL
and decide as the evidence warranted.


Tsiers-we find that we are IN doubt about the
jurors fitness and we think the prisoner should have
that doubt We, therefore, find the Juror not quail
fed After this one after another was rejected to
the number OF six.


was rejected by the Court, having expressed an
opinion. He "stepp aside"


nSae e o ter OF Se a
no impression even was not acquainted with either
the prisoner or his friends, nor had he been ac-
quaintcd with the deceased his friends; had no
conscientious scruples about hanging man. Not
witllstanding all this he was set aside under the
peremptory rule.


It had been the practice OF the prosecution up to
posed ts to the IL M ncioh Of Capital when
the evidence would warrant verdict OF the first
degree OF murder, This s was usually @ asked after
opinion Mr. Bartlett, associate counsel for the de-
fence, objected to the asking OF such question alter
the juror had proved himself unfit by reason Of his
having an Oplnlon. He could not see
THE OBJECT OF the QUE ~.


If t to give the jury the impression that most
persons favored the nnctlon Of capital punishment
the defence would be justified In producing and
reading the state documents OF Michigan, showing
that State by the abolition OF the death penalty
The Court do not think such was the object Of
the District Attorney In asking the question OF the
proposed juror. ain rather OF the opinion that it
was to gain time that the question was put.
Mr. Bartlett demurred to this; but 1t was finally
satisfactorily settled that the object in the putting Of
the interrogation was as stated by the Court.


the propre Of to Se deash
atty. His notions on this point were derived from
higher law than that Of man. He was excused.
Lucius Lyon had no formed opinion; had no i'm
preston; had no anything that would disquallfy
him to act as juror. lie was set aside under the
peremptory challenge.


Adolph J. Gruches,
THE GENTLEMAN WHO HAD BEEN SWORN BY MIS-.
he having answered TO another mans name
| yesterday, was here called, and stepped upon
the stand to be again questioned and cross.


he seeo Re
and the c9nyersations he had heard he had re-
| one to warrant his calling 1t an opinion; nothing
| had occurred TO dispe that impression; II would,
in fact require some evidence to remove that Inn
Judge Garvin-Do you suppose that you could
fit on that jury and render decision impartaly In





Judge Stuart-T do now decidedly object to my
friend sitting there and prop0undng propositions.
demand that lie desist hereafter from pursuing
this line Of examination and mean 10 stick 10 what
| ] say.


Tie Court think the District Attorney had bet
| ter change the Iorm OF the question. ] think it
| would be desirable.


The question was then put in another form, and
the case OF the Juror referred to the triers The
juror was decided Dt, but was set aside by the
peremptory challenge.


IL was now one O'Clock, and


NO JUROR HAD BEEN OBTAINED UP TO THIS TINE,
and with very little prospect OF getting any called.
Mr.. Gilman C0llamore was asked by the District
Attorney II he had any bias against the prisoner
from the accounts he mad read and heard OF the
murder.


Judge Stuart again objected lie said that was an
improper way OF putting the question: 1t should
he put In this wlse:-Has the juror any bias for or
against the party accused Of the crime, or has the


Juror any bias either for or against the guilt nno
cence Of the accused-and not has he any bias
against the prisoner.


The Court ruled that or the challenge for favor tho
District Attorney had right to ask any question
bearing on the case IN any form he preferred.