10

MONDAY AND MARY IN COURT

OPENING DAY OF THE GREAT SHEEDY CASE.

Several Hours Consumed Over a Motion to Quash the Regular Panel of Jurors.

Nine Men Passed on the Challenge for Cause, Most of Whom Will Probably be Let Out on Peremptory Challenges.

Rather an Uninteresting Proceeding.
"State of Nebraska against McFarland and Sheedy."

So called Judge Field at 9:30 yesterday morning in the large court room of the county building. There were then not more than twenty spectators in the room. The prisoners and attorneys had not yet come in but upon the announcement the doors opened and the crowd of spectators swelled to a hundred.

Five minutes later Monday McFarland came in and strayed over to the south side of the judicial enclosure in an unconcerned manner, and took a seat near the attorney's table, where he crossed his legs and leaned back with the utmost composure to await the tide of momentous events soon to be surging around him. He wore yellow pantaloons and vest with a pronounced check therein, with a gray coat. One could search a year without finding a blacker darkey than Monday McFarland. His skin is sombre and smooth that it shines like a piece of black silk.

In another five minutes Mrs. Sheedy came in, accompanied by her two sisters, Mrs. Dean of this city and Mrs. Morgan of San Diego, Cal. The fair prisoner was looking not so unwell as rumors which have from time to time emanated from the jail would lead one to expect. She was very pale, but withal handsome, and her deep black raiment added that severity to her marble features which gives statuary its chief charm, Mrs. Dean was also in deep black, but Mrs. Morgan was attired in lighter costume with a touch of color in her hat.

"Mrs. Sheedy is certainly a modest-looking woman and not at all the sort of a defendant I expected to see," remarked a veteran court official, and his hearers agreed with him. She was perfectly composed and was in no way that was apparent to observers disturbed by the scene being enacted around her. Her calm and modest bearing undoubtedly excited the compassionate sympathy of all around her and no one could look at her pale face without experiencing the conviction that, unless she is endowed with supreme qualifications as in dissembler, there must be some terrible mistakes in the horrible stories related about her by Monday McFarland. To one unacquainted with her troubled past her fair, serene face would certainly indicate the strictest purity and piety. She watched with modest interest the entire proceedings of the day without indicating by so much as a smile or a frown their vast import to her.

The array of connsel seated about the table in front of the jury box comprised County Attorney Snell, Hon. F. M, Hall and Hon. G. M. Lambertson for the prosecution; Hon. H. W. Weir of Boise City, Idaho, and Strode & Stearns for Mrs. Sheedy; Colonel Philpott and [Messrs.?] Billingsley & Woodward for Monday McFarland.

Judge Weir, who appears as counsel for Mrs. Sheedy, is a man of small stature but but somewhat striking features, round which plays a constant halo of good humor and quick intelligence. His hair is white and his ample mustache and goatees are of the same color. Judge Weir was appointed chief justice of Idaho in 1888 by President Cloveland and served in that capacity for two years. He was formerly from Pittsburg. He is in the case at the instance of Mrs. Sheedy's uncle, Hon. H. W. [Biggerst?] of Boise City, Idaho, an aged gentleman, who came into court with the prisoner and her sisters. Mr. Biggerstaff is a man of prominence in Boise City, having gone to that section in 1862 and acquired an ample fortune. He is now engaged in the stock business. He is a large, fine-looking man, with a massive head and features. His hair, mustache and whiskers are also nearly white.

"Are you ready for trial?" asked the court of the county attorney.

"Yes, sir," promptly responded Mr. Snell.

"The clerk will call the jury."

Hon. J. B. Strode then stepped to the front and informed the court that he was awaiting the arrival of Mr. Stearns with some paers which he wished to file in the case.

Some twenty minutes were spent in awaiting the arrival of Mr. Stearns and in reading the papers when they came. The documents referred to comprised a motion to quash the regular panel of jurors for the alleged reason that it was not drawn full twenty days prior to the beginning of the trial term; that the names were not drawn from a list of one-tenth of the legal voters of the precincts of the county prepared by the commissioners as required by law, but from pocket memorand in the possession of the commissioners, and for the further reason that a special panel had been summoned for this trial.

Counsel for the defense stated that they wished to introduce oral, evidence
in support of their motion, which was already supported by the affidavit of Colonel Philpott.

"Do you wish to introduce counter-affidavits?" asked the court.

"We do," said Mr. Snell.

An adjournment was then taken until 1:30 o'clock, the defense being permitted an hour and a half in which to complete their affidavits, the state to have the remainder of the time until 1:30 o'clock.

"Hereafter, counsel will please bear in mind, court will convene promptly at 9 a.m., and counsel will please be in readiness at that hour. Court will stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock."

The Afternoon Session.

It lacked but ten minutes of the 2 o'clock when the prisoners returned into court for the afternoon session, and it was somewhat later when the attorneys took their seats. The crowd of spectators was considerably increased, but there were but two or three ladies present.

Mr. Stearns read an affidavit of Mart Howe, county clerk, in which, it was made to appear that the county commissioners had never tiled in his office a list containing the names of one-tenth of the legal voters of each town and precinct.

Mr. Snell for the [seate?], read the affidavits of Alba Brown, county commissioner, District Clerk Sizer and Mart Howe, county clerk, showing that the law had been complied with except the actual formal filing of the list, which was at all times in the county clerk's office.

The court promptly overruled the motion to quash and instructed the clerk to call the jury. The following were called to the box: Matt Mauel, H. S. McGoogan, J. P. Hendry, Charles Ring, D. B. Howard, Henry Pfiefi, E. D. Champion, Ed Sisler, Fred O. Wedge, Clarence E. Hedges, J. B. Abbott and Henry Harkson. W. W. Carder was called, but was excused at the suggestion of the state, as his name is endorsed on the information as a witness.

Matt Mauel lives in the north part of the county and is a farmer; couldn't say that he had formed any opinion that would preclude his rendering a verdict according to the evidence, but he didn't think that he could render a verdict of guilty on circumstantial evidence where the punishment would be death. Mr. Mauel was challenged by the state for cause and was excused.

Max Westerman took his place. Max had read accounts of the case and had formed and expressed an opinion to the neighbors. Was not opposed to capital punishment. He was passed for the time being without challenge and without examination by the defense.

Fred O. Wedge, for three years a resident of East Lincoln, had read the evidence and formed an opinion. He also thought that he couldn't render a verdict of guilty where the punishment would be death. He was excused on the state's challenge for cause, and the defense entered an exception.

F. H. Dunham was called to his place.

Clarence E. Hedges said he had fromed an opinion of the guilt of the defendants from what he had read and what he had heard and had it still. It would take evidence to remove it. He was excused on a challenge by the defense.

H. S. McGoogan, bookkeeper for Gus Sanders, had lived in Lincoln six years, from what he had heard and read he had formed an opinion. It would require evidence to remove it, but he thought he could render a verdict according to the evidence. He was not opposed to capital punishment.

Cross-examined: Had a strong prejudice in this case. Had heard the case discussed. John Sheedy formerly had his office in Sander's place. Excused on challenge of the defense.

J. P. Hendry had lived in Lincoln for twelve years. He had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt of one of the defendants. It would take evidence to remove it. He had formed his opinion from what he had read in the newspapers. Read THE JOURNAL principally.

Mr. Strode- We challenge for cause.

Examined by the court, he thought that he could render a verdict according to the evidence.

Mr. Strode- Could you presume these defendents innocent?

The state objected and the question was ruled out. Defense excepted.

The defense also asked whether or not the fact that the defendants had been bound over would not influence him one way or the other. The state objected, which was sustained, and the defense excepted.

Mr. Strode- We now offer in evidence a copy of THE STATE JOURNAL, containing an account of the testimony given at the preliminary examination.

He did so and asked Mr. Hendry if he had read the issue of January 19, 1891, containing an account of the arrest of defendants. He replied that he thought he did. Also THE JOURNAL of January 20, containing Monday's confession. The state objected to, both of them, and the court sustained the objection. The copies of THE JOURNAL were allowed to go into the record, but the court stated positively that the law was that reading the newspapers did not disqualify a man to serve on a jury. The challenge of the defense was overrulled.

E. D. Champion of Firth, had lived in the county eighteen years. He had formed no opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendants; had read the first accounts of the murder in THE JOURNAL, but had not read the testimony; had no opinions in relation to the case. The challenge of the defense was overruled. Exception taken.

Henry Pfiefi of this city was called. He would not return a verdict of guilty on circumstantial evidence in a case where the penalty is death. He was not in favor of capital punishment, and after a great deal of bickering among the attorneys, was excused.

Henry Harkson, a merchant of Davey was examined. Though he had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of defendants from what he had read in THE JOURNAL and heard from his neighbors. It would take evidence to remove that opinion. He thought that he could, however, render a verdict according to the evidence, and the challenge of the defense was overruled.

Ed Sisler of Grant precinct, said he had formed an opinoin from reading THE JOURNAL'S accounts of the case. Circumstantial evidence would have to be overwhelmingly strong ere he would return a verdict that would lead to the hanging of a person. He had conscientious scruples against returning such a verdict. Excused on the state's challenge, defense excepting.

Charles Ring of Cheney, a farmer, was sworn. He had formed and expressed an opinion, based upon what he had heard and read; thought he could render a verdict according to the evidence. The opinion he had formed from reading THE STATE JOURNAL and related to both of the defendants. He could give defendants the benefit of a presumption of their innocence until they were proven guilty. The challenge of the defense was overruled.

D. B. Howard thought he had served ont the jury in the district court within the past year. An examination of the record showed that he served in May, 1800. He was excused on the state's challenge.

J. B. Abbot had lived in this county for over twenty years. He hadn't read the papers very much; had read THE JOURNAL and Call only occasionally as he took no paper, and was a model juror in ordinary respects. Colonel Philpott brought out the fact that the juror was sixty-two years old and therefore not a copetent jouror. He objected. The court ruled that he did not have to serve if he did not wish to, but it was no disqualification. Colonel Philpott endeavored very adroitly to get the juror to say that he did not wish to serve, but the latter merely remarked that he would be very glad to be excused if could do so without evading any public duty. He left it entirely with the court. Judge Field said that the juror was fully appraised of his rights and could claim them for him.

"Do you know Mr. Marquett?" queried Philpott.

"Not at all."

"Do you know Mr. Deweese?"

"Not at all."

"Do you not know Mr. Hall?"

"Slightly. I have spoke to him."

"Is it not a fact that you have been riding on a B. & M. pass furnished you during the past year by one of the three parties named?"

"I never rode on a pass in my life given me by anybody."

As it was evident that Mr. Abbott was a little hard of hearing the court yielded to the objections of the defense and excused him.

F. H. Dunham of Saltillo, a school teacher, had lived in the county twenty-three years. He said he had conscientious scruples against capital punishment, but thought that he could render a verdict upon the evidence and the instructions of the court, even though it would inflict the death penalty. He had formed an opinion from reading THE JOURNAL and other Lincoln paers, but thought it would cut no figure in making up his verdict. He was passed for cause.

Max Westerman was then examined by the defense. He had formed a pretty strong opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants. He had talked about the case with many people, and had made up his opinions from many sources. He was excused.

C. Oakes of Bennett, a farmer, aged fifty-nine years, had formed no settled opinion in the case. He was not opposed to the death penalty. When asked if he could conscientiously render a verdict whereby the death penalty would be inflicted on circumstantial evidence, he replied:

"That would be a hard thing to do, but under my oath I suppose I would have it to do."

Mr. Oaks had read in THE JOURNAL the accounts of the murder, but had formed an opinion which it would take evidence to remove, but thought he could render a verdict upon the law and the evidence. He could give the defendants the benefit of a presumption of their innocence.

Challenged by the defense for cause. Overruled.

Purdy W. Quackenboss of 428 South Tenth street, driver of a bread wagon, was sworn. He had read the newspapers but had formed no opinion in the matter. He was not opposed to capital punishment, believed in the efficacy of circumstantial evidence and was in fact ripe in every way for faithful and patient jury service. He could even presume the defendants to be innocent and he was in fact entirely free from bias, although he retained some impressions from what he had read, which it would, require evidence to remove.

The juror was challenged for cause by the defense. Overruled.

James Reed lives five miles southwest of Lincoln and worked in a brick yard; formerly lived at Denton. Didn't know that he had formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused; have none now. Had read of it in THE JOURNAL. He thought he could render a verdict on the law and evidence; upon circumstantial evidence where the punishment would be death. Passed for cause.

L. L. Corey of Highland precinct had formed no opinon [in?] the case; and no scruples against the death penalty, and could return a verdict of guilty in circumstantial evidence. He thought he could return a verdict strictly on the law and the evidence. He had read McFarland's confession in THE JOURNAL, wherefore the defense challenged him for cause. The challenge was overruled.

When court adjourned the nine men retained as having passed the challenge for cause where J. P. Hendry, E. D. Champion, Henry Harkson, Charles Ring, F. H. Dunham, C. Oakes, P. W. Quackenboss, James Reed and L. L. Corey. Just half of the number called had been rejected, and some eleven names [will?] remain upon the regular panel.

It was evident from the questions prepared for submission by the defense and their persistent objections to the state's interrogations and exceptions to the court's rulings that the attorneys for the defendants propose to thresh over the entire ground as they go along, losing no opportunity to fasten upon the proceedings every ruling that may offer a remote show of being in error.

After the trial, panel of twelve men shall have run the gauntlet of the challenge for cause, it will certainly be pretty thoroughly thinned out again by the peremptory challenges, of which the state has six and the defense sixteen.

Some of the questions submitted by the defense in the examination of jurors outside of the ordinary routine, questions in such cases are as follows:

"Have you formed any opinons as to whether or not John Sheedy was killed by a blow upon the head with a cane or other like weapon?"

"Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not John Sheedy was poisoned after he was assaulted?"

"Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not John Sheedy was killed in pursuance of a conspiracy?"

"Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not either of these defendants was concerned in said conspiracy or was a member of said conspiracy?"

"Can you now presume these defendants innocent?" This question was objected to each time and the objection sustained.

"Can you give these defendants, both of them, the benefit of the presumption of their entire innocence of the crime charged until proven guilty?"

"Does the fact that they have been held to answer the crime charged, and the further fact that an information has been made by the county attorney and tiled in this court, raise any presumption of guilt or innocence in your mind?" This question was also ruled out each time by the court.

"From rumors, newspaper reports and the fact that these defendants have been held to answer to the crime alleged in the information and the fact that the county attorney has filed this information- from any or all of these do you not lean a little one way or the other touching the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendants?" This question was also repeatedly rejected.

"Have you served on the jury in this court within the last two years?"

"Are you in any way or matter related to John Sheely, or either of these defendants?"

In ruling as he did in retaining jurors who had formed and expressed an opinion in the case repeatedly Judge Field quoted the statute governing the "causes for challenge," as follows:

"The following shall be good causes for challenging to any person called as a juror on the trial of any indictment: First, that he was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment. Second, that he formed or expressed an opinon as to the guilt or innocence of the accused ; provided, that if a juror shall state that he has formed or expressed an opinon as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court shall thereupon proceed to examine, on oath, such juror as to the ground of such opinion, and if it shall appear to have been founded upon reading newspaper statements, communications, comments or reports, or upon rumor or hearsay, and not upon conversations with witnesses of the transactions, or reading reports of their testimony, or hearing them testify, and the juror shall say on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence, the court, if satisfied that such juror is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in the discretion, admit such juror as competent to serve in such case."

When the regular panel shall have been exhausted, the defense wall enter against the special panel of 150 men a motion to quash the same for similiarially

MONDAY AND MARY IN COURT

OPENING DAY OF THE GREAT SHEEDY CASE.

Several Hours Consumed Over a Motion to Quash the Regular Panel of Jurors.

Nine Men Passed on the Challenge for Cause, Most of Whom Will Probably be Let Out on Peremptory Challenges.

Rather an Uninteresting Proceeding.
"State of Nebraska against McFarland and Sheedy."

So called Judge Field at 9:30 yesterday morning in the large court room of the county building. There were then not more than twenty spectators in the room. The prisoners and attorneys had not yet come in but upon the announcement the doors opened and the crowd of spectators swelled to a hundred.

Five minutes later Monday McFarland came in and strayed over to the south side of the judicial enclosure in an unconcerned manner, and took a seat near the attorney's table, where he crossed his legs and leaned back with the utmost composure to await the tide of momentous events soon to be surging around him. He wore yellow pantaloons and vest with a pronounced check therein, with a gray coat. One could search a year without finding a blacker darkey than Monday McFarland. His skin is sombre and smooth that it shines like a piece of black silk.

In another five minutes Mrs. Sheedy came in, accompanied by her two sisters, Mrs. Dean of this city and Mrs. Morgan of San Diego, Cal. The fair prisoner was looking not so unwell as rumors which have from time to time emanated from the jail would lead one to expect. She was very pale, but withal handsome, and her deep black raiment added that severity to her marble features which gives statuary its chief charm, Mrs. Dean was also in deep black, but Mrs. Morgan was attired in lighter costume with a touch of color in her hat.

"Mrs. Sheedy is certainly a modest-looking woman and not at all the sort of a defendant I expected to see," remarked a veteran court official, and his hearers agreed with him. She was perfectly composed and was in no way that was apparent to observers disturbed by the scene being enacted around her. Her calm and modest bearing undoubtedly excited the compassionate sympathy of all around her and no one could look at her pale face without experiencing the conviction that, unless she is endowed with supreme qualifications as in dissembler, there must be some terrible mistakes in the horrible stories related about her by Monday McFarland. To one unacquainted with her troubled past her fair, serene face would certainly indicate the strictest purity and piety. She watched with modest interest the entire proceedings of the day without indicating by so much as a smile or a frown their vast import to her.

The array of connsel seated about the table in front of the jury box comprised County Attorney Snell, Hon. F. M, Hall and Hon. G. M. Lambertson for the prosecution; Hon. H. W. Weir of Boise City, Idaho, and Strode & Stearns for Mrs. Sheedy; Colonel Philpott and [Messrs.?] Billingsley & Woodward for Monday McFarland.

Judge Weir, who appears as counsel for Mrs. Sheedy, is a man of small stature but but somewhat striking features, round which plays a constant halo of good humor and quick intelligence. His hair is white and his ample mustache and goatees are of the same color. Judge Weir was appointed chief justice of Idaho in 1888 by President Cloveland and served in that capacity for two years. He was formerly from Pittsburg. He is in the case at the instance of Mrs. Sheedy's uncle, Hon. H. W. [Biggerst?] of Boise City, Idaho, an aged gentleman, who came into court with the prisoner and her sisters. Mr. Biggerstaff is a man of prominence in Boise City, having gone to that section in 1862 and acquired an ample fortune. He is now engaged in the stock business. He is a large, fine-looking man, with a massive head and features. His hair, mustache and whiskers are also nearly white.

"Are you ready for trial?" asked the court of the county attorney.

"Yes, sir," promptly responded Mr. Snell.

"The clerk will call the jury."

Hon. J. B. Strode then stepped to the front and informed the court that he was awaiting the arrival of Mr. Stearns with some paers which he wished to file in the case.

Some twenty minutes were spent in awaiting the arrival of Mr. Stearns and in reading the papers when they came. The documents referred to comprised a motion to quash the regular panel of jurors for the alleged reason that it was not drawn full twenty days prior to the beginning of the trial term; that the names were not drawn from a list of one-tenth of the legal voters of the precincts of the county prepared by the commissioners as required by law, but from pocket memorand in the possession of the commissioners, and for the further reason that a special panel had been summoned for this trial.

Counsel for the defense stated that they wished to introduce oral, evidence
in support of their motion, which was already supported by the affidavit of Colonel Philpott.

"Do you wish to introduce counter-affidavits?" asked the court.

"We do," said Mr. Snell.

An adjournment was then taken until 1:30 o'clock, the defense being permitted an hour and a half in which to complete their affidavits, the state to have the remainder of the time until 1:30 o'clock.

"Hereafter, counsel will please bear in mind, court will convene promptly at 9 a.m., and counsel will please be in readiness at that hour. Court will stand adjourned until 1:30 o'clock."

The Afternoon Session.

It lacked but ten minutes of the 2 o'clock when the prisoners returned into court for the afternoon session, and it was somewhat later when the attorneys took their seats. The crowd of spectators was considerably increased, but there were but two or three ladies present.

Mr. Stearns read an affidavit of Mart Howe, county clerk, in which, it was made to appear that the county commissioners had never tiled in his office a list containing the names of one-tenth of the legal voters of each town and precinct.

Mr. Snell for the [seate?], read the affidavits of Alba Brown, county commissioner, District Clerk Sizer and Mart Howe, county clerk, showing that the law had been complied with except the actual formal filing of the list, which was at all times in the county clerk's office.

The court promptly overruled the motion to quash and instructed the clerk to call the jury. The following were called to the box: Matt Mauel, H. S. McGoogan, J. P. Hendry, Charles Ring, D. B. Howard, Henry Pfiefi, E. D. Champion, Ed Sisler, Fred O. Wedge, Clarence E. Hedges, J. B. Abbott and Henry Harkson. W. W. Carder was called, but was excused at the suggestion of the state, as his name is endorsed on the information as a witness.

Matt Mauel lives in the north part of the county and is a farmer; couldn't say that he had formed any opinion that would preclude his rendering a verdict according to the evidence, but he didn't think that he could render a verdict of guilty on circumstantial evidence where the punishment would be death. Mr. Mauel was challenged by the state for cause and was excused.

Max Westerman took his place. Max had read accounts of the case and had formed and expressed an opinion to the neighbors. Was not opposed to capital punishment. He was passed for the time being without challenge and without examination by the defense.

Fred O. Wedge, for three years a resident of East Lincoln, had read the evidence and formed an opinion. He also thought that he couldn't render a verdict of guilty where the punishment would be death. He was excused on the state's challenge for cause, and the defense entered an exception.

F. H. Dunham was called to his place.

Clarence E. Hedges said he had fromed an opinion of the guilt of the defendants from what he had read and what he had heard and had it still. It would take evidence to remove it. He was excused on a challenge by the defense.

H. S. McGoogan, bookkeeper for Gus Sanders, had lived in Lincoln six years, from what he had heard and read he had formed an opinion. It would require evidence to remove it, but he thought he could render a verdict according to the evidence. He was not opposed to capital punishment.

Cross-examined: Had a strong prejudice in this case. Had heard the case discussed. John Sheedy formerly had his office in Sander's place. Excused on challenge of the defense.

J. P. Hendry had lived in Lincoln for twelve years. He had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt of one of the defendants. It would take evidence to remove it. He had formed his opinion from what he had read in the newspapers. Read THE JOURNAL principally.

Mr. Strode- We challenge for cause.

Examined by the court, he thought that he could render a verdict according to the evidence.

Mr. Strode- Could you presume these defendents innocent?

The state objected and the question was ruled out. Defense excepted.

The defense also asked whether or not the fact that the defendants had been bound over would not influence him one way or the other. The state objected, which was sustained, and the defense excepted.

Mr. Strode- We now offer in evidence a copy of THE STATE JOURNAL, containing an account of the testimony given at the preliminary examination.

He did so and asked Mr. Hendry if he had read the issue of January 19, 1891, containing an account of the arrest of defendants. He replied that he thought he did. Also THE JOURNAL of January 20, containing Monday's confession. The state objected to, both of them, and the court sustained the objection. The copies of THE JOURNAL were allowed to go into the record, but the court stated positively that the law was that reading the newspapers did not disqualify a man to serve on a jury. The challenge of the defense was overrulled.

E. D. Champion of Firth, had lived in the county eighteen years. He had formed no opinion of the guilt or innocence of the defendants; had read the first accounts of the murder in THE JOURNAL, but had not read the testimony; had no opinions in relation to the case. The challenge of the defense was overruled. Exception taken.

Henry Pfiefi of this city was called. He would not return a verdict of guilty on circumstantial evidence in a case where the penalty is death. He was not in favor of capital punishment, and after a great deal of bickering among the attorneys, was excused.

Henry Harkson, a merchant of Davey was examined. Though he had formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of defendants from what he had read in THE JOURNAL and heard from his neighbors. It would take evidence to remove that opinion. He thought that he could, however, render a verdict according to the evidence, and the challenge of the defense was overruled.

Ed Sisler of Grant precinct, said he had formed an opinoin from reading THE JOURNAL'S accounts of the case. Circumstantial evidence would have to be overwhelmingly strong ere he would return a verdict that would lead to the hanging of a person. He had conscientious scruples against returning such a verdict. Excused on the state's challenge, defense excepting.

Charles Ring of Cheney, a farmer, was sworn. He had formed and expressed an opinion, based upon what he had heard and read; thought he could render a verdict according to the evidence. The opinion he had formed from reading THE STATE JOURNAL and related to both of the defendants. He could give defendants the benefit of a presumption of their innocence until they were proven guilty. The challenge of the defense was overruled.

D. B. Howard thought he had served ont the jury in the district court within the past year. An examination of the record showed that he served in May, 1800. He was excused on the state's challenge.

J. B. Abbot had lived in this county for over twenty years. He hadn't read the papers very much; had read THE JOURNAL and Call only occasionally as he took no paper, and was a model juror in ordinary respects. Colonel Philpott brought out the fact that the juror was sixty-two years old and therefore not a copetent jouror. He objected. The court ruled that he did not have to serve if he did not wish to, but it was no disqualification. Colonel Philpott endeavored very adroitly to get the juror to say that he did not wish to serve, but the latter merely remarked that he would be very glad to be excused if could do so without evading any public duty. He left it entirely with the court. Judge Field said that the juror was fully appraised of his rights and could claim them for him.

"Do you know Mr. Marquett?" queried Philpott.

"Not at all."

"Do you know Mr. Deweese?"

"Not at all."

"Do you not know Mr. Hall?"

"Slightly. I have spoke to him."

"Is it not a fact that you have been riding on a B. & M. pass furnished you during the past year by one of the three parties named?"

"I never rode on a pass in my life given me by anybody."

As it was evident that Mr. Abbott was a little hard of hearing the court yielded to the objections of the defense and excused him.

F. H. Dunham of Saltillo, a school teacher, had lived in the county twenty-three years. He said he had conscientious scruples against capital punishment, but thought that he could render a verdict upon the evidence and the instructions of the court, even though it would inflict the death penalty. He had formed an opinion from reading THE JOURNAL and other Lincoln paers, but thought it would cut no figure in making up his verdict. He was passed for cause.

Max Westerman was then examined by the defense. He had formed a pretty strong opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants. He had talked about the case with many people, and had made up his opinions from many sources. He was excused.

C. Oakes of Bennett, a farmer, aged fifty-nine years, had formed no settled opinion in the case. He was not opposed to the death penalty. When asked if he could conscientiously render a verdict whereby the death penalty would be inflicted on circumstantial evidence, he replied:

"That would be a hard thing to do, but under my oath I suppose I would have it to do."

Mr. Oaks had read in THE JOURNAL the accounts of the murder, but had formed an opinion which it would take evidence to remove, but thought he could render a verdict upon the law and the evidence. He could give the defendants the benefit of a presumption of their innocence.

Challenged by the defense for cause. Overruled.

Purdy W. Quackenboss of 428 South Tenth street, driver of a bread wagon, was sworn. He had read the newspapers but had formed no opinion in the matter. He was not opposed to capital punishment, believed in the efficacy of circumstantial evidence and was in fact ripe in every way for faithful and patient jury service. He could even presume the defendants to be innocent and he was in fact entirely free from bias, although he retained some impressions from what he had read, which it would, require evidence to remove.

The juror was challenged for cause by the defense. Overruled.

James Reed lives five miles southwest of Lincoln and worked in a brick yard; formerly lived at Denton. Didn't know that he had formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused; have none now. Had read of it in THE JOURNAL. He thought he could render a verdict on the law and evidence; upon circumstantial evidence where the punishment would be death. Passed for cause.

L. L. Corey of Highland precinct had formed no opinon [in?] the case; and no scruples against the death penalty, and could return a verdict of guilty in circumstantial evidence. He thought he could return a verdict strictly on the law and the evidence. He had read McFarland's confession in THE JOURNAL, wherefore the defense challenged him for cause. The challenge was overruled.

When court adjourned the nine men retained as having passed the challenge for cause where J. P. Hendry, E. D. Champion, Henry Harkson, Charles Ring, F. H. Dunham, C. Oakes, P. W. Quackenboss, James Reed and L. L. Corey. Just half of the number called had been rejected, and some eleven names [will?] remain upon the regular panel.

It was evident from the questions prepared for submission by the defense and their persistent objections to the state's interrogations and exceptions to the court's rulings that the attorneys for the defendants propose to thresh over the entire ground as they go along, losing no opportunity to fasten upon the proceedings every ruling that may offer a remote show of being in error.

After the trial, panel of twelve men shall have run the gauntlet of the challenge for cause, it will certainly be pretty thoroughly thinned out again by the peremptory challenges, of which the state has six and the defense sixteen.

Some of the questions submitted by the defense in the examination of jurors outside of the ordinary routine, questions in such cases are as follows:

"Have you formed any opinons as to whether or not John Sheedy was killed by a blow upon the head with a cane or other like weapon?"

"Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not John Sheedy was poisoned after he was assaulted?"

"Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not John Sheedy was killed in pursuance of a conspiracy?"

"Have you formed an opinion as to whether or not either of these defendants was concerned in said conspiracy or was a member of said conspiracy?"

"Can you now presume these defendants innocent?" This question was objected to each time and the objection sustained.

"Can you give these defendants, both of them, the benefit of the presumption of their entire innocence of the crime charged until proven guilty?"

"Does the fact that they have been held to answer the crime charged, and the further fact that an information has been made by the county attorney and tiled in this court, raise any presumption of guilt or innocence in your mind?" This question was also ruled out each time by the court.

"From rumors, newspaper reports and the fact that these defendants have been held to answer to the crime alleged in the information and the fact that the county attorney has filed this information- from any or all of these do you not lean a little one way or the other touching the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendants?" This question was also repeatedly rejected.

"Have you served on the jury in this court within the last two years?"

"Are you in any way or matter related to John Sheely, or either of these defendants?"

In ruling as he did in retaining jurors who had formed and expressed an opinion in the case repeatedly Judge Field quoted the statute governing the "causes for challenge," as follows:

"The following shall be good causes for challenging to any person called as a juror on the trial of any indictment: First, that he was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment. Second, that he formed or expressed an opinon as to the guilt or innocence of the accused ; provided, that if a juror shall state that he has formed or expressed an opinon as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the court shall thereupon proceed to examine, on oath, such juror as to the ground of such opinion, and if it shall appear to have been founded upon reading newspaper statements, communications, comments or reports, or upon rumor or hearsay, and not upon conversations with witnesses of the transactions, or reading reports of their testimony, or hearing them testify, and the juror shall say on oath that he feels able, notwithstanding such opinion, to render an impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence, the court, if satisfied that such juror is impartial and will render such verdict, may, in the discretion, admit such juror as competent to serve in such case."

When the regular panel shall have been exhausted, the defense wall enter against the special panel of 150 men a motion to quash the same for similiarially