17

TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE

------------------------------------------------

THE JURY SECURED IN THE SHEEDY CASE.

-----------------------------------------------

Juror Norton Discovered to Have Talked Himself Into a Bad Predicament.

------------------------------------------------

He [Saw?] $ in the Position of Juror Opening Statements of What the Respective Attorneys Anticipate Their Ability to Prove.

------------------------------------------------

The Testimony to Begin To day,

There were few spectators present yesterday morning when court opened in the Sheedy murder case. Mrs. Sheely had come in escorted only by Mr. [Biggenting?], the wealthy old uncle from Boise City, and her sister, Mrs. Morgan, the other sisters, Mrs. Dean and Mrs. [Barber?], being a trifle late in arriving at the court house. Monday McFarland found the escort of Jailer Langdon good enough for him.

Mrs. Sheedy was somewhat more nervous than at any previous time since the trial, and Monday preserved his usual [??] gravity throughout.

The first hour of work in completing the panel of jurors was dull enough, but at the end of that time the lively scenes forshadowed in THE JOURNAL of Sunday morning began to dawn in the procedings, [rather?] the promise thereof after over an hour of consultations among all of the attorneys, during which time the court and attendants were [?] and the spectators were perplexed and impatient, the first extra sensational feature of the trial was sprung in the sworn charges preferred against Juror A B. Norton of Davey, which led to his subsequent release from the panel and his arrest. From that time on the proceedings were mroe interesting, until at: the opening statements of counsel, outlining their respective cases, were completed and the jury cautioned to refrain from discussions of the case and the bailiffs cautioned to permit them to read no local papers.

The jury to whom the case will be finally submitted comprises James Van [Canipin?] of Little Salt precinct, J. C. Jensen of Lincoln and George Albrecht of Highland, who wee members of the first panel of 150 drawn; Fal Young and John Robertson of Panama. C. S. Cadwallader of Little Sat, Luther Battten of Oak, James Johnson of Grant and Thomas Riley of Buda, all members of the third panel.

To secure this jury, 364 men have passed through the judicial sweat box on the revolving chair usually reserved for the use of witnesses, out of 486 summoned on the regular and three special panels.

The Morning Session.

Thomas Lynch, jr., a young farmer and the first juror called, said that he had formed an opinion from what he had read and heard read; had either read the confession or heard it read, but it had escaped his memory, as had also his [?]. He was excused.

[?] Whiting of this city, a commercial tourist for a St. Louis tobacco house, had no scruples against the death penalty or circumstantial evidence; had read all the details and had a sample of his opinion with him. He was excused.

E. B. Barney, a dealer in rubber; had an opinion and wasn't needed.

C. S. Cadwallader of Raymond, a farmer, supposed he had expressed himself about the case, but couldn't say it was an opinion believed he had read the confession and part of the testimony about the inquest and prliminary hearing; thought he had formed an opinion therein. It would take some first-hand evidence to remove that opinion. The defense held a long consultation over this witness and finally challenged, but withdrew the objection and he took his seat in the box.

The thirty-second and last regular challenge of the defense ruined the financial hopes of Jolin H. Hart, and he flitted because Colonel Philpott of Monday's counsel didn't hanker after him.

M. H. Baldwin of University' place was the next called and said he has formed an opinion from what he had [caught?] flitting around through the suburbs. He was excused on the states challenge for cause.

J. R. Roscoe of Denton precint, a farmer, knew Mr. Sheedy and had formed an opinion from having read McFarland's confession, and if that was true he supposed they were guilty. He was promptly tired.

H. A. Larriner of Raymond, a farmer, had formed an opinion on what he had read. He had read the case all through up to the last day. He was excused.

A. J. Webster was excused because he was something of a lawyer himself.

William [Heitman?] of Olive Branch precint, had read the confession and testimony and knew he had an opinion, therefore the court bade him depart.

Luther Batten of Raymond, a farmer, couldn't say whether he had or hadn't formed an opinion; had read the News and the Call and might have formed an opinion, but it was not a well developed one. He had no prejudice, and if selected as a juror, thought he could render a verdict based on the law and the evidence, but wasn't sure, as he had read a great deal about the case and it was a pretty well tangled up case. Had talked with Melick about it a long time since but it had not left an opinion. He had no scruples against the indiction of the death penalty; believed hanging was justice for some people; couldn't say he would or would not hang on circumstantial evidence if it convinced him he would return a verdict accordingly. He was passed by both sides and filled the panel, it was supposed, as far as any further challenge of the defense was concerned, and the court announced:

"The states' last challenge."

Then there was a mysterious movement among the attorneys for the state. After vainly endeavoring to conduct a secret conference around the attorneys' [?] they retired to the private office of Judge Field to confer. Pretty soon Mr. Snell came out, secured his hat and went away, presumably to make some investigation or inquiry.

The presumption was correct and over an hour was allowed to flit by into oblivion [ere?] there was a return into court by the attorneys. In the secret conferences, held in the court's private office all of the attorneys participated at times. The promised [?] revelation came with refreshing strength when it developed in a short time that the discussion was over Juror A. B. Norton. The state was fortified with a number of affidavits to prove that Norton, prior to the begining of the trial, had expressed an opinion. In fact he had launched upon the public a number of opinions. One of them was to the effect that Mrs. Sheedy was guilty and deserved to be hung. Another was that both were gulity, while to still another he had said that "lie would hang the d--d nigger and let the woman go free." These aftidavits were kept among the attorneys for some time, but it was apparent that a storm was brewing in the little room where the conference was being held. The state [?] the juror, removed and didn't wish to exercise its sole remaining challenge in that direction. The defense insisted that the state exercised its challenge for his removal.

The jury was removed from the court at a [?] request of counsel and Mr. Lamberson entered the following notion:

"We move to exclude the juror, A. B. Norton of Davey, for the reasin that he has formed and expressed an opinion touching the guilt or innocence of the accused--both of them--at numerous [?], which fact was not disclosed in his examination in the voir dire. And not withstanding the fact that he swore on that examination that he had not formed or expressed any opinion, that he had not read the newspaper account except stray sketches; that he had not read what purported to be the confession [?] the testimony taken either at the preliminary hearing or before the coroner's jury, and in support of that motion I have six affidavits."

These affidavits were then read by the speaker and were certainly of a starting nature, two of them being as follows:

"G. A. Swvey, being first duly sworn on oath says that he as a resident and citizen of Rock Creek precinct and has been since 1887 that he has known one A. B. Norton who is now on the panel of jurors, in the above entitled case, for three years or more; that on or about the 1st day of May, 1891, said Norton had a conversation with this affiant when they were on their way home from the city of Lincoln; that at said time said Norton had been drawn and served as one of the special from which a jury in, said cause was to be chosen that said Norton said he was going to serve on said jury, if possible; that a [?] the city of Lincoln had told him that there was $500 on it, and that he would hold the jury until he got money for his verdict; that the Sheedy's were rich and that if they could convinct Mrs. Sheedy they would get the money, and that he was agoing to have a part of it."

"R. B. Crawford, [?] first duly sworn, says that he has lived up the town of Davey about two years and in the county since 1871, excepting three years; that he is acquanted with one A. B. Norton, who is now one of the panel of eleven chosen in the above entitled case and has known him for about eighteen months; that the same day that said Norton got his summons to appear as a juror in said cause he was at the blacksmith shop of this affiant in the town of Davey; that said Norton told this affiant at said time and place that if he could get to serve on the Sheedy jury he would make some money out of it; that this affiant supposed from what Norton said and the manner of his saying it, that he would take money for his verdict from either side that would pay him for it."

The remaining affidavits were by W. H. Tarball, Patrick McGill, James O'Brien and Phillip Opp, all business men of Davey, who had been present at varitimes when accounts of the case had been read in the presence of Norton, and each of these had heard him express such opinions as "Oh--I! the woman will get clear and the nigger will hang," "The d--d nigger is guilty and ought to hang," and other similar expressions.

Mr. Strode objectified to the entering of any such motion and asked that it be reduced to writing. He further objected to the reading of any affidavits in support of such in [imption?], for the reason that said juror had been passed and accepted as a juror and this motion was made and sought to be brought to the attention of the court after the defendants had exhausted all their peremptory challenges and for the further reason that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain any such motion and the motion was proper and incompetent for any purpose whatever, and also the affidavits in support thereof; and further that the state had yet one challenge and has the power to remove the object on able juror.

The court overruled the objection.

Mr. Lambertson--I have here the testimony of Norton on his voir dire exmaination.

The testimony was read, wherein Norton testified that he had not read the confession nor expressed an opinion, and Lambertson continued:

"I think it was first on Saturday that it came to our ears through a communication, and also by the representation of a gentleman that Mr. Norton had formed and expressed an opinion." Since that time we have been as diligent as possible to get at the exact facts, and only obtained them a few minutes before the motion was made, null although the conversations and opinions of the juror would seeth in some respects to be favorable in the state, certainly as against one of the defendants, and perhaps favorable as to the other, but whatever might to the opinion, we flet it was our duty to first call the attention of the counsel of the opposite side so that this juror might be excused without any scandal, if necessary by agreement. And we laid before them to consent to have the juror excused. This they were not willing to do unless we would extend to them the thiry-third premptory challenge, which we declined upon the ground that it was not our fault that this man had passed into the panel and had violated his oath. Now, recognizing as we do the importance of this trial, and the fact that it may cost the country thousands and thousands of dollars, nobody knows how much time and expense of counsel and the issue--none can be more important--the matter of life and death, hanging upon this verdict--we felt that whatever mgiht be the opinion of this man, whether for or against us, as to one or both of the defendants, that we ought to call the attention of the court to this juror and have him excluded from the panel, so that we could enter upon this trial with an unbiased, unprejudiced and an honest journey, and so that when the end comes we can feel that the verdict we have is an honest verdict, returned by the peers of these defendants, and therefore we ask that this man be excluded from the panel. And if I could express certainly my own convinction about it, I could wish not only that that man be excluded from the panel, but that he be put into the hands of the officers, there to be prosecuted for perjury and for a violation of oath. It is too frequent, it seems to me, that [jurymer?] come into the box; it is too frequent that men get upon this panel and betray the trust and confidence that is imposed upon them, making a mockery of justice, and I would not only like to see him excluded from the panel, but deals with according to the law. Now on the question of a peremptory challenge, Prior to the time these gentlemen had made their last premptory challenge we asked them to wave, as we desired to make a motion--and I spoke to the court about it--but they want on and made their challenge. Before we had time to make this motion and before we could get this evidence, we had to break the Sabbath, but we thought the end justified the means. And now it seems to me that, they ought not to have a thirty-third challenge, but I think in order to be fair, entirely fair strictly and overwhelmingly fair, we ought first to exhuast our peremptory challenge, and then the twelfth men be chosen without having a premptory challenge. That would be entirely fair. The fact that this man has gotten upon the jury is not our fault. We are not responsible for it at all, but they should not be given the advantage because a corrupt man has sneaked into the jury box. But we ought to exhaust our premptory challenge before the man is excused. Then we stand exactly upon the same basis and upon the same bottom, perfectly impartial and fair, neither of us having a challenge upon the last man that comes in to the box."

Mr. Philpott responded in behalf of Monday McFarland, as follows:

"The defendants object to the excusing of this juror. With all the beautiful remarks that this gentleman has made and how fair and just and honest he presented to us some of those affidavits--possibly some of us may have seen all of them. I waited upon him, represented the attorneys for the defendants, and said we had concluded this: That the man ought to be executed. But you have waited until we have lost our last challenge. We are willing that he shall go off the stand, but let us have one more peremptory challenge. Now what you are trying to get is, as we deem it, an advantage. He says he told us about it before we had exhuasted our last challenge. He didn't. They broke the Sabbath getting this up; they say they came into this court this morning with these papers in their pockets. They knew of it all the time. They waited until the last moment and when it was our turn to challenge they said, 'Wait.' We waited. Finally one of the defendants said: 'Why wait?' and they said: 'You needn't.' And then I said, 'The challenge is [?].' Without intimating a word that they had got an affidavit, without imitating a single word that there was a corrupt juror in the box, you waited until it was done, and then after that you called us in consultation. Do you call that fair? Do you think you dealt honestly and fairly with us? If you had said this morning when you met us: 'See here, we have got a corrupt man. Wait before you exhaust your last challenge. Don't do it until we consult.' Then you would have acted like an honerable gentleman and treated us fairly. I say, you didn't do it. And all this is brought around because you desire to gain an advantage over us. You say it will be fair to do as you say; It is not fair. He seeks to get the last two gentlemen there. He gets the advantage of it. He says: 'Now we will exhaust our challenge.' And then comes on the last man that ought to have come. Then there is to come another, which is the advantage you seek of us and what you have been working for. If there is anybody trying to play a game or hoodwink anybody and take the advantage, you are the men. What we ask for is to have another challenge, so as to place us on equal footing with the state, and where we would have been and you told us the facts in time."

Mr. Hall for the state also spoke to the motion and in the course of his remarks said that he could not understand why Colonel Philpott could reasonably object to the removal from the panel of a man who had said that his client ought to be hung.

"There is no use [trilling?]," remarked Judge Field in a decided tone of annoyance "the juror has got to be excused. I will also suggest that the county attorney examine this man and if he has violated the law on perjury, I desire that you file an information against him and have him arrested ere the coming in of the jury this afternoon."

Strode: "There is no objection made to the excusing of Mr. Norton."

The court announced that the defense would be allowed a challenge [?] to Norton's successor if it was desired.

How Norton Got His $500.

Acting upon the instructions of Judge Field, County Attorney Snell, during the noon hour, prepared an information charging perjury before Judge Stewart, which he filed in Justice Cochran's court. When the jury came out of the jury room at 2 p. m. Norton was placed under arrest. Deputy Sheriff [Hijexie?] escorted him to the office of Justice Cochran, where he was attended by his attorney, R. J. Greene. In a short time J. H. McMurtry came in, accompanied by General J. R. Webster, and Norton was placed under bonds of $500 to appear for trial May 25. Mr. McMurtry becoming surety for his appearance.

The Afternoon Session.

When court convened at 2:10 p. m. there were more spectators present than at any time since the opening of the trial. The number of ladies in attendance was larger, also, than on any previous day.

When the defendants came in every eye was directed toward Mrs. Sheedy. Her three sisters had evidently anticipated the presence of a critical audience of feminine observers, and Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Dean appeared in decidedly smarter costumes than heretofore.

When the jury filled in, it was noticed that Mr. Norton was not among them. He had been placed under arrest by a deputy sheriff as the jury, came out of its room at 2 o'clock to return into court.

The work of choosing his successor was immediately begun in accordance with the understanding that the defense should have an additional peremptory challenge as to him alone ere the [?] be called upon to exercise its final challenge.

L. Waite of Olive Branch, a school teacher, was excused for having opinions of the case.

William Beason, a plasterer at Malcolm, had read the confession and testimony. He was excused.

Ross Crabtree of Stevens Creek precint, had an opinion based on the confession and published testimony. He was allowed to go.

M. H. Mills of Waverly, a stock raiser, had formed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused and had no scruples against the death penalty. He had read no papers concerning the Sheedy murder and took none except the Nebraska Farmer. He could presume defendants to be innocent and thought he could render a fair and impartial verdict on the law and the evidence. The defense evidently didn't want this [?], but his answers were [?] and he was accepted.

The defense was then permitted to make the additional challenge as to this man only and they let him go, but not without protesting that they should be given a whack at the entire panel and the state had entered an objection to the allowance of the thirty-third challenge.

George W. Gaskell of Waverly, a millet, had formed and expressed an opinion about the case that he [remembered?] but wouldn't swear positively; had had a major portion of the confession and testimony; had some scruples against the death penalty on circumstantial evidence; he didn't believe the confession he had read,

WOOL DRESS GOODS
AT ABOUT
HALF PRICE!

Including Plaids, Stripes and Brocades.

HERPOLSHEIMER & CO.
EXPOSITION DEPARTMENT STORES

TELEPHONE: 176. OFFICE: 1001 O STREET.

MOVING HOUSEHOLD GOODS AND PIANOS A SPECIALTY

and the state challenged him. In reply to the attorneys for the defense he thought he could render an impartial verdict, as he was without bias; he had meant to say that on convincing circumstantial evidence he would not refuse to bring in a verdict of guilty. Witness had known John Sheedy; had sold butter to him; also knew Mrs. Sheedy. Neither the state or Monday's attorneys were satisfied with the juror and he was excused.

E. J. Markell was excused for his opinions.

James Johnson of Cheney, a young farmer had never formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt of the accused, and was not opposed to the capital punishment; never read anything in the papers unless it related to fast forses. Juror had no bias and was passed.

The state's last challenge and the last allowed in the case was directed to Asher W. Widdifield. It hit him and he fled.

William Brown of Cheney, foreman on the B. & M., had an opinion that was not based on the confession nor the testimony formerly adduced; had no objections to hanging for murder; had read the confessions of Monday and didn't take very much stock in it. It would take some evidence to remove the opinion he had formed. He was excused.

William Brinton had formed and expressed no opinion as to the defendants guilt but had conscientious scruples against the death penalty and would refuse to render a verdict inticing it.

Thomas Riley, of Sprague, had no scruples against the death penalty; had read a little about the case, but not the confession or testimony of witnesses; had never talked with anyone about the case; had no bias or prejudice and knew nothing of the merits of the case; could presume the defendants innocent and give them a fair trial. He was accepted.

It was 3:10 p. m. when the long and tedious work of securing a jury was effected and the twelve good men and true, [yoemen?] and peers, were submitted to the oath. The panel comeprises James Van Campen, George Albrecht, J. C. Jensen, Jacob Croy, Albert Ward, Henry L. Wilis, Ed Young, John Robertson, C. S. Cadwallader, Luther Batten, James Johnson and Thomas Riley.

For a few moments there was a murmur of suppressed excitement over the completion of this long task, fraught with such grave importance. After the oath was administered all over jurors summoned in the case were excused and an oppressive silence immediately fell upon the audience, which had meantime increased to beyond the seating capacity of the court room.

"The attorneys will present their opening statements remarked Judge Field. one could have heard a pin drop as County Attorney Snell faced the jury and related in detail the circumstances surrounding the case. His address was as follows:

The State's Opening

"Gentlemen of the Jury: We have been engaged now since last Monday morning in the selection of a jury to try this case and I presume that you are impressed with the importance of the case, sitting here as you have and seeing the number of men that have been examined as jurors, and after they have all been examined and the challenges have been used on the part of the state and on the part of the defense, you men are selected to pass upon the issues that are involved in this trial. Possibly sume of you knew personally John Sheedy. He came to this town in an early day and on the 11th day of January of this year at about half past seven o'clock, as he stepped out of his own door in this city, he was assualted, struck over the left eye with some blunt instrument. The wound was dressed by two of our physicans, who at the time did not consider it serious. At 4 o'clock, however, Monday morning his symptoms were alarming and at ten o'clock that evening he died. In the criminal annals of this county, yea I might say of this state, there never was a more brutal, cowardly, murder than that of John Sheedy. Immediately after the wounds were dressed he went to bed, and the evidence will show you that he was given three doses of medicine known by the name of "sulfonal," to qeuit his favor and allay his pain, that he might get some rest. The first dose was given him about eleven o'clock, and the second near twelve o'clock, and these were given by his attending physician, Dr. Hart. At nearly one o'clock the third dose was given in some coffee, which was prepared by the defendant. Mary Sheedy, in this case. That he retained upon his stomach, and very shortly passed into what was at the time supposed to be a natural sleep produced by sulfonal. At about four o'clock the next mroning--this was given at one o'clock--a nephew of the deceased, young Dennis Sheedy, called the attention of the attending physician to the fact that his uncle was breathing very heavily. It was then discovered that John Sheedy was unconsious, that he was lying in a comatose condition, that he was breathing only about six times a minute, that his eyes were closed and his limbs were paralyzed. In other words he was suffering from all of the symptoms of morphine poisoning or compression of the brain caused by the blow, the two being very similar. I might add, however, that one symptom usually presented in morphine poisoning was absent, namely the contraction of the pupils of the eye. However, the expert testimony on that point will be that the pupils are not always contracted. Somem times in fact in the later stages of the case they are as often dilated perhaps as contracted, the muscles and nerves of the eye become paralyzed, and it is in just the condition that the pupil of the eye happens to be at the time. The expert testimony that will be introduced in this case will probably not be altogether harmonious as to the cause of Mr. Sheedy's death but it will all be within the variations or counts rather, set up in the information. Th information which is filled in this case charges the defendant, Monday McFarland, and Mary Sheedy, who was the wife of the deceased, with murdering Johns Sheedy. Originally the information contained six counts, but the first two--(Philpott objects). I say those as to two counts were withdrawn from the consideration fo the jury and they have been so withdrawn by order of the court, but the third count charges the defendant, Monday McFarland, with striking John Sheedy over the head with a cane and killing him, and also charges the defendant, Mary Sheedy, with being an accessory to that murder. The fourth count charges Mary Sheedy with the killing of John Sheedy by administering to him morphine, and the defendant, Monday McFarland as an accessory to the murder. The fifth count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy both, jointly as principals, with the killing by the cane and by the administering of morphine, and the sixth and last count charges Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy jointly with the killing of John Sheedy by striking him over the head with a cane. Perhaps it might be well for us to pause here for a short time and get definitely fixed in mind what is meant by the principal and what by an accessory before the fact. You will observe that Mrs. Sheedy is charged once as a principal, once as an accessory before the fact and twice as a principal jointly with the defndant Monday McFarland; likewise Monday McFarland is charged twice as accessory before the fact, once as a principal and twice as a principal jointly with the defendant Mrs. Sheedy. As I understnad it, by the laws of this state one is a principal who does the crime, or commits the act himself, to illustrate it we will say by a case of stealing--and I want to add further to that the one who is present at the time aiding, advising and abetting the other to commit the act. Now for illustration, if A. goes into a man's store and steals money or anything that is in that store, he does the act himself, and under the definition he is the principal, and if B., on the other hand, stays up

TWELVE GOOD MEN AND TRUE

------------------------------------------------

THE JURY SECURED IN THE SHEEDY CASE.

-----------------------------------------------

Juror Norton Discovered to Have Talked Himself Into a Bad Predicament.

------------------------------------------------

He [Saw?] $ in the Position of Juror Opening Statements of What the Respective Attorneys Anticipate Their Ability to Prove.

------------------------------------------------

The Testimony to Begin To day,

There were few spectators present yesterday morning when court opened in the Sheedy murder case. Mrs. Sheely had come in escorted only by Mr. [Biggenting?], the wealthy old uncle from Boise City, and her sister, Mrs. Morgan, the other sisters, Mrs. Dean and Mrs. [Barber?], being a trifle late in arriving at the court house. Monday McFarland found the escort of Jailer Langdon good enough for him.

Mrs. Sheedy was somewhat more nervous than at any previous time since the trial, and Monday preserved his usual [??] gravity throughout.

The first hour of work in completing the panel of jurors was dull enough, but at the end of that time the lively scenes forshadowed in THE JOURNAL of Sunday morning began to dawn in the procedings, [rather?] the promise thereof after over an hour of consultations among all of the attorneys, during which time the court and attendants were [?] and the spectators were perplexed and impatient, the first extra sensational feature of the trial was sprung in the sworn charges preferred against Juror A B. Norton of Davey, which led to his subsequent release from the panel and his arrest. From that time on the proceedings were mroe interesting, until at: the opening statements of counsel, outlining their respective cases, were completed and the jury cautioned to refrain from discussions of the case and the bailiffs cautioned to permit them to read no local papers.

The jury to whom the case will be finally submitted comprises [Jauies?] Van [Canipin?] of Little Salt precinct, J. C. Jensen of Lincoln and George Albrecht of Highland, who wee members of the first panel of 150 drawn; Fal Young and John Robertson of Panama. C. S. Cadwallader of Little Sat, Luther Battten of Oak, James Johnson of Grant and Thomas Riley of Buda, all members of the third panel.

To secure this jury, 364 men have passed through the judicial sweat box on the revolving chair usually reserved for the use of witnesses, out of 486 summoned on the regular and three special panels.

The Morning Session.

Thomas Lynch, jr., a young farmer and the first juror called, said that he had formed an opinion from what he had read and heard read; had either read the confession or heard it read, but it had escaped his memory, as had also his [?]. He was excused.

[?] Whiting of this city, a commercial tourist for a St. Louis tobacco house, had no scruples against the death penalty or circumstantial evidence; had read all the details and had a sample of his opinion with him. He was excused.

E. B. Barney, a dealer in rubber; had an opinion and wasn't needed.

C. S. Cadwallader of Raymond, a farmer, supposed he had expressed himself about the case, but couldn't say it was an opinion believed he had read the confession and part of the testimony about the inquest and prliminary hearing; thought he had formed an opinion therein. It would take some first-hand evidence to remove that opinion. The defense held a long consultation over this witness and finally challenged, but withdrew the objection and he took his seat in the box.

The thirty-second and last regular challenge of the defense ruined the financial hopes of Jolin H. Hart, and he flitted because Colonel Philpott of Monday's counsel didn't hanker after him.

M. H. Baldwin of University' place was the next called and said he has formed an opinion from what he had [caught?] flitting around through the suburbs. He was excused on the states challenge for cause.

J. R. Roscoe of Denton precint, a farmer, knew Mr. Sheedy and had formed an opinion from having read McFarland's confession, and if that was true he supposed they were guilty. He was promptly tired.

H. A. Larriner of Raymond, a farmer, had formed an opinion on what he had read. He had read the case all through up to the last day. He was excused.

A. J. Webster was excused because he was something of a lawyer himself.

William [Heitman?] of Olive Branch precint, had read the confession and testimony and knew he had an opinion, therefore the court bade him depart.

Luther Batten of Raymond, a farmer, couldn't say whether he had or hadn't formed an opinion; had read the News and the Call and might have formed an opinion, but it was not a well developed one. He had no prejudice, and if selected as a juror, thought he could render a verdict based on the law and the evidence, but wasn't sure, as he had read a great deal about the case and it was a pretty well tangled up case. Had talked with Melick about it a long time since but it had not left an opinion. He had no scruples against the indiction of the death penalty; believed hanging was justice for some people; couldn't say he would or would not hang on circumstantial evidence if it convinced him he would return a verdict accordingly. He was passed by both sides and filled the panel, it was supposed, as far as any further challenge of the defense was concerned, and the court announced:

"The states' last challenge."

Then there was a mysterious movement among the attorneys for the state. After vainly endeavoring to conduct a secret conference around the attorneys' [?] they retired to the private office of Judge Field to confer. Pretty soon Mr. Snell came out, secured his hat and went away, presumably to make some investigation or inquiry.

The presumption was correct and over an hour was allowed to flit by into oblivion [ere?] there was a return into court by the attorneys. In the secret conferences, held in the court's private office all of the attorneys participated at times. The promised [?] revelation came with refreshing strength when it developed in a short time that the discussion was over Juror A. B. Norton. The state was fortified with a number of affidavits to prove that Norton, prior to the begining of the trial, had expressed an opinion. In fact he had launched upon the public a number of opinions. One of them was to the effect that Mrs. Sheedy was guilty and deserved to be hung. Another was that both were gulity, while to still another he had said that "lie would hang the d--d nigger and let the woman go free." These aftidavits were kept among the attorneys for some time, but it was apparent that a storm was brewing in the little room where the conference was being held. The state [?] the juror, removed and didn't wish to exercise its sole remaining challenge in that direction. The defense insisted that the state exercised its challenge for his removal.

The jury was removed from the court at a [?] request of counsel and Mr. Lamberson entered the following notion:

"We move to exclude the juror, A. B. Norton of Davey, for the reasin that he has formed and expressed an opinion touching the guilt or innocence of the accused--both of them--at numerous [?], which fact was not disclosed in his examination in the voir dire. And not withstanding the fact that he swore on that examination that he had not formed or expressed any opinion, that he had not read the newspaper account except stray sketches; that he had not read what purported to be the confession [?] the testimony taken either at the preliminary hearing or before the coroner's jury, and in support of that motion I have six affidavits."

These affidavits were then read by the speaker and were certainly of a starting nature, two of them being as follows:

"G. A. Swvey, being first duly sworn on oath says that he as a resident and citizen of Rock Creek precinct and has been since 1887 that he has known one A. B. Norton who is now on the panel of jurors, in the above entitled case, for three years or more; that on or about the 1st day of May, 1891, said Norton had a conversation with this affiant when they were on their way home from the city of Lincoln; that at said time said Norton had been drawn and served as one of the special from which a jury in, said cause was to be chosen that said Norton said he was going to serve on said jury, if possible; that a [?] the city of Lincoln had told him that there was $500 on it, and that he would hold the jury until he got money for his verdict; that the Sheedy's were rich and that if they could convinct Mrs. Sheedy they would get the money, and that he was agoing to have a part of it."

"R. B. Crawford, [?] first duly sworn, says that he has lived up the town of Davey about two years and in the county since 1871, excepting three years; that he is acquanted with one A. B. Norton, who is now one of the panel of eleven chosen in the above entitled case and has known him for about eighteen months; that the same day that said Norton got his summons to appear as a juror in said cause he was at the blacksmith shop of this affiant in the town of Davey; that said Norton told this affiant at said time and place that if he could get to serve on the Sheedy jury he would make some money out of it; that this affiant supposed from what Norton said and the manner of his saying it, that he would take money for his verdict from either side that would pay him for it."

The remaining affidavits were by W. H. Tarball, Patrick McGill, James O'Brien and Phillip Opp, all business men of Davey, who had been present at varitimes when accounts of the case had been read in the presence of Norton, and each of these had heard him express such opinions as "Oh--I! the woman will get clear and the nigger will hang," "The d--d nigger is guilty and ought to hang," and other similar expressions.

Mr. Strode objectified to the entering of any such motion and asked that it be reduced to writing. He further objected to the reading of any affidavits in support of such in [imption?], for the reason that said juror had been passed and accepted as a juror and this motion was made and sought to be brought to the attention of the court after the defendants had exhausted all their peremptory challenges and for the further reason that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain any such motion and the motion was proper and incompetent for any purpose whatever, and also the affidavits in support thereof; and further that the state had yet one challenge and has the power to remove the object on able juror.

The court overruled the objection.

Mr. Lambertson--I have here the testimony of Norton on his voir dire exmaination.

The testimony was read, wherein Norton testified that he had not read the confession nor expressed an opinion, and Lambertson continued:

"I think it was first on Saturday that it came to our ears through a communication, and also by the representation of a gentleman that Mr. Norton had formed and expressed an opinion." Since that time we have been as diligent as possible to get at the exact facts, and only obtained them a few minutes before the motion was made, null although the conversations and opinions of the juror would seeth in some respects to be favorable in the state, certainly as against one of the defendants, and perhaps favorable as to the other, but whatever might to the opinion, we flet it was our duty to first call the attention of the counsel of the opposite side so that this juror might be excused without any scandal, if necessary by agreement. And we laid before them to consent to have the juror excused. This they were not willing to do unless we would extend to them the thiry-third premptory challenge, which we declined upon the ground that it was not our fault that this man had passed into the panel and had violated his oath. Now, recognizing as we do the importance of this trial, and the fact that it may cost the country thousands and thousands of dollars, nobody knows how much time and expense of counsel and the issue--none can be more important--the matter of life and death, hanging upon this verdict--we felt that whatever mgiht be the opinion of this man, whether for or against us, as to one or both of the defendants, that we ought to call the attention of the court to this juror and have him excluded from the panel, so that we could enter upon this trial with an unbiased, unprejudiced and an honest journey, and so that when the end comes we can feel that the verdict we have is an honest verdict, returned by the peers of these defendants, and therefore we ask that this man be excluded from the panel. And if I could express certainly my own convinction about it, I could wish not only that that man be excluded from the panel, but that he be put into the hands of the officers, there to be prosecuted for perjury and for a violation of oath. It is too frequent, it seems to me, that [jurymer?] come into the box; it is too frequent that men get upon this panel and betray the trust and confidence that is imposed upon them, making a mockery of justice, and I would not only like to see him excluded from the panel, but deals with according to the law. Now on the question of a peremptory challenge, Prior to the time these gentlemen had made their last premptory challenge we asked them to wave, as we desired to make a motion--and I spoke to the court about it--but they want on and made their challenge. Before we had time to make this motion and before we could get this evidence, we had to break the Sabbath, but we thought the end justified the means. And now it seems to me that, they ought not to have a thirty-third challenge, but I think in order to be fair, entirely fair strictly and overwhelmingly fair, we ought first to exhuast our peremptory challenge, and then the twelfth men be chosen without having a premptory challenge. That would be entirely fair. The fact that this man has gotten upon the jury is not our fault. We are not responsible for it at all, but they should not be given the advantage because a corrupt man has sneaked into the jury box. But we ought to exhaust our premptory challenge before the man is excused. Then we stand exactly upon the same basis and upon the same bottom, perfectly impartial and fair, neither of us having a challenge upon the last man that comes in to the box."

Mr. Philpott responded in behalf of Monday McFarland, as follows:

"The defendants object to the excusing of this juror. With all the beautiful remarks that this gentleman has made and how fair and just and honest he presented to us some of those affidavits--possibly some of us may have seen all of them. I waited upon him, represented the attorneys for the defendants, and said we had concluded this: That the man ought to be executed. But you have waited until we have lost our last challenge. We are willing that he shall go off the stand, but let us have one more peremptory challenge. Now what you are trying to get is, as we deem it, an advantage. He says he told us about it before we had exhuasted our last challenge. He didn't. They broke the Sabbath getting this up; they say they came into this court this morning with these papers in their pockets. They knew of it all the time. They waited until the last moment and when it was our turn to challenge they said, 'Wait.' We waited. Finally one of the defendants said: 'Why wait?' and they said: 'You needn't.' And then I said, 'The challenge is [?].' Without intimating a word that they had got an affidavit, without imitating a single word that there was a corrupt juror in the box, you waited until it was done, and then after that you called us in consultation. Do you call that fair? Do you think you dealt honestly and fairly with us? If you had said this morning when you met us: 'See here, we have got a corrupt man. Wait before you exhaust your last challenge. Don't do it until we consult.' Then you would have acted like an honerable gentleman and treated us fairly. I say, you didn't do it. And all this is brought around because you desire to gain an advantage over us. You say it will be fair to do as you say; It is not fair. He seeks to get the last two gentlemen there. He gets the advantage of it. He says: 'Now we will exhaust our challenge.' And then comes on the last man that ought to have come. Then there is to come another, which is the advantage you seek of us and what you have been working for. If there is anybody trying to play a game or hoodwink anybody and take the advantage, you are the men. What we ask for is to have another challenge, so as to place us on equal footing with the state, and where we would have been and you told us the facts in time."

Mr. Hall for the state also spoke to the motion and in the course of his remarks said that he could not understand why Colonel Philpott could reasonably object to the removal from the panel of a man who had said that his client ought to be hung.

"There is no use [trilling?]," remarked Judge Field in a decided tone of annoyance "the juror has got to be excused. I will also suggest that the county attorney examine this man and if he has violated the law on perjury, I desire that you file an information against him and have him arrested ere the coming in of the jury this afternoon."

Strode: "There is no objection made to the excusing of Mr. Norton."

The court announced that the defense would be allowed a challenge [?] to Norton's successor if it was desired.

How Norton Got His $500.

Acting upon the instructions of Judge Field, County Attorney Snell, during the noon hour, prepared an information charging perjury before Judge Stewart, which he filed in Justice Cochran's court. When the jury came out of the jury room at 2 p. m. Norton was placed under arrest. Deputy Sheriff [Hijexie?] escorted him to the office of Justice Cochran, where he was attended by his attorney, R. J. Greene. In a short time J. H. McMurtry came in, accompanied by General J. R. Webster, and Norton was placed under bonds of $500 to appear for trial May 25. Mr. McMurtry becoming surety for his appearance.

The Afternoon Session.

When court convened at 2:10 p. m. there were more spectators present than at any time since the opening of the trial. The number of ladies in attendance was larger, also, than on any previous day.

When the defendants came in every eye was directed toward Mrs. Sheedy. Her three sisters had evidently anticipated the presence of a critical audience of feminine observers, and Mrs. Morgan and Mrs. Dean appeared in decidedly smarter costumes than heretofore.

When the jury filled in, it was noticed that Mr. Norton was not among them. He had been placed under arrest by a deputy sheriff as the jury, came out of its room at 2 o'clock to return into court.

The work of choosing his successor was immediately begun in accordance with the understanding that the defense should have an additional peremptory challenge as to him alone ere the [?] be called upon to exercise its final challenge.

L. Waite of Olive Branch, a school teacher, was excused for having opinions of the case.

William Beason, a plasterer at Malcolm, had read the confession and testimony. He was excused.

Ross Crabtree of Stevens Creek precint, had an opinion based on the confession and published testimony. He was allowed to go.