13

AND STILL NO SHEEDY JURY

A PROTEST AGAINST OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

The Prosecution Thinks That Undue Influences Are at Work to Seal the Darkey's Lips.

Jon Carter, the Colored Juror, is Spotted and Monday McFarland Weeps- Two Challenges Remaining and 544 Men Examined.

Sixth Day of the Great Trial.
There was a decreased attendance in the court room yesterday morning when order was summoned out of mild confusion by the stern, solemn "hear ye" of of Deputy-Sheriff Hoagland. The summons had not [cooled?] [are?] Attorney Philpott of Monday McFarland's counsel advanced to the court's [?] and addressed the ever courteous tribunal on a question of privilege, half in inquiry and half in deprecation. He wished to inquire whether or not an interview between his client and a witness was not to be permitted in the court room. He said that on the previous evening W. W. Carder had had a conference with McFarland in the room and that the attorneys for the state had made a roar about it. He had also wished to permit McFarland's wife to have a secret interview with him in the jail, but this had been denied unless the jailor could be present and hear it. The proposed conference was to be about family matters, and the parties, while willing to talk about them in his presence, did not want to allow the jailor to hear it. He had made the request on Thursday, and it had been denied. He thought it a right to which the prisoner was entitled and he wanted him confirmed in it.

The court said he saw no reason why Monday should not be allowed to converse with his witnesses.

Mr. Hall contended that he did not deem it proper for Mr. Carder, who he said, was evidently in the pay of the defense, to be permitted to hold secret conference with the prisoner, as he had done during the previous evening. He said that the whispered conference had begun before the court had left the room, but continued for some time thereafter.

The court said he saw no good reason for denying Monday's right to converse with the witnesses, even though the latter was in the employ of the defense.

But Mr. Hall and Mr. Lambertson continued to protest that Mr. Carder was not employed in the capacity of counsel, and Colonel Philpott protested that he was not in the employ of the defense.

Sheriff McClay said to the court that he would like a rule to guide him as to who should be permitted to confer with Monday, and the court established it by giving directions that hereafter conferences with the dusky prisoner would be permitted only upon the court's order. This apparently terminated the outward evidences of a great deal of inward feeling.

The objections of the state were aroused by the fact that after the adjournment of court Friday evening W. W. Carder and Monday McFarland had sat with their heads very close together for some time engaged in a conversation of great apparent secrecy. Only four or five feet away sat the [impertumble?] and ever vigilant Jim Malone, but Colonel Philpott sat between him and the parties conferring, guarding the [secresy?] of the whispered discourse with cat like vigilance.

The attorneys for the state are convinced that Monday McFarland is nearing the point where he is likely to make interesting revelations, if only left alone, but that there is a constant pressure being brought to hear upon him to keep him from so doing. They express the conviction that Mr. Carder's conference was in [?] with that evident desire to seal the darkey's lips. They think that this [?] is even being exerted upon him while in the county jail, chiefly in behalf of Mrs. Sheedy. They say that Jailor Langden, is very partial to the cause of Mrs. Sheedy, and has gone so far as to express the conviction that it is "an outrage" to keep her imprisoned on the charge. They say that the safeguard of such influences may throw around the prisoners are not calculated to further the ends of justice, and they have complained to Sheriff McClay of Langdon's attitude in the matter. It was asserted that they had asked the sheriff to remove Mr. Langdon, but Mr. McClay denies that assertion. He says that if it can be shown that Jailor Langdon has done one thing wrong in connection with the case, he will remove him, but none has been reported to him. He also said that the story of Langdon's partiality toward the cause of his feminine ward has been much exaggerated.

However these alleged facts may be, it is certain that the attorneys for the state are not satisfied in the matter. They even claim that there has been an efforton foot to have Mrs. Sheedy and Monday permitted to hold a conference in the jail by themselves.

It is also evident that the defense fears Monday, and that the state's advocates have hopes that he will break down.

Hence it was that when Monday was noticed crying for some time just before court adjourned last evening, the attorneys for the prosecution were more that ever convinced that their hopes were to be realized, but Monday's attorneys explained that his mental depression was due to the receipt of news from Kansas that his mother would be unable to come up to the trial.

Throughout the day Mrs. Sheedy was more actively interested in the proceedings around her than at any time heretofore. She had laid aside the look of settled melancholy that has hitherto been her chief characteristic, and yesterday [?] an active interest in the selection of the jury, evidenced by her whispering to those around her concerning the juror and their examinations. She [?] asked her attorneys that one juror with whom she was favorably impressed be allowed to remain on the jury, but her counsel thought otherwise and he was excused.

When the colored juror was given a seat in the panel it was noticed by everone [?] Mrs. Sheedy did some very vigorous whispering, and finally caught the ear of her uncle. He in turn caught Mr. Strode and the two retired from the room together. Soon after their return, it was what Captain Billingsley asked permission to return to consult with his client. That conference results in the release of Joe Carter, and soon afterwards it was noticed that Monday McFarland was in tears. The explanation of his tears which seems most plausible to the counsel for the prosecturion and their assisting officers, as well as to some of the court officials, is that the release of that darkey from the jury had its meaning for even the obtuse understanding of Monday McFarland. In his voir dire examination Joe Carter had professed to have an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the parties, but the defense had accepted him. It is thought that he would be not so likely to convict Monday and acquit Mrs. Sheedy as would a white man, and this is the state's idea of the motive for his dismissal.

With each day's work in securing the jury the interest intensifies and some mighty stirring scenes may be anticipated in that court room ere this great legal battle is brought to an end.

The attendance throughout the entire day was not so great as it has been heretofore, and it is apparent that the public is awaiting the completion of the jury, which will probably be effected before the noon hour to-morrow.

The jurors who were held in the box to spend the Sabbath were James Van Campen, George Albrecht, J. C. Jensen, A. B. Norton, John H. Hart, A. W. Widdifield, Jacob Croy, Albert Ward, Henry L. Willis, El Young and John Robertson. They are not the most inteligent looking body by any means that could have been selected, and it is suspected that the state is not fully satisfied with it, but it has but one challenge retaining. The jury is strictly guarded, and the members are forbidden to converse about the case.

It is hinted that some of the jurors have expressed opinions in relation to this case, and in view of their oath that they have not so done, it is believed that the attorneys for the state will not neglect an opportunity to go after them for perjury.

Mrs. Morgan, the California sister of Mrs. Sheedy, was noticed to be on the anxious seat yesterday, and inquiry developed the fact that she was very earnestly engaged in an endeavor to keep her alleged picture out of local pictorial papers. It is said that she is very sensitive in regard to the matter, which explains her apprehensions, as she is a handsome woman, and were an accurate picture of her given she need have no scruples.

The first juror who responded to the call of the list was Charles Grady of Raymond, a farmer, who had formed and expressed an opinion and still had it. He was challenged by the defense and excused.

Thomas L. Phillips of Thirteenth and W streets, a carpenter, had never read very much about it, for he never believed very much in "readin' murder cases"; had no opinion and no scruples against the death penaly on circumstantial evidence, not even in case of a woman. Juror knew Mr. Hall slightly and Mr. Snell by sight.

Billingsley: "What is your politics, Mr. Phillips?"

"Well, independent."
"Then you voted for Mr. Snell, did you?"

Ere the witness could answer the state objected to the question as improper and it was withdrawn.

"Have you any bias or prejudice against colored people?"

"I don't see why I should have. They are human beings the same as ourselves."

Juror thought he would be a model of fairness and impartiality. He took his seat in the box.

The twenty-seventh challenge of the defense sent Warren Clark, the school teacher, away regretfully.

J. W. Billow of Oak precinct had an opinion and didn't think he could render an important verdict, having read all about the case. He was excused

M. L. Hiltner didn't think he could render a fair and impartial opinion and therefore was not wanted.

Henry L. Willis had no opinion; was in charge of the freight house of the Union Pacific; had no scruples against the death penalty, even in case of a woman, and thought he could render a fair and impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence. Had read all the papers, he guessed, including the confession; formed no opinion because I didn't take any stock in it. Juror didn't rely much on the newspapers; didn't have any prejudice against a negro; was a democrat in politics; knew John Sheedy by sight, but never spoke to him. Never spoke to any of the attorneys for the state.

"Well, your'e in luck," said Mr. Billingsley.
"You bet I believe you."
The juror was accepted and took a seat in the box.

The state's fifth challenge tackled H. H. Shatzell so vigorously that he grabbed his hat and made a bee line for the door, almost forgetting to settle with the clerk.

F. F. Mockett was excused because he was an attorney.

Joseph C. McBride had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and thought he could render a fair and impartial opinion. Had discussed the case a great many times, but never had any impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

"I might have formed an impression that, if what I read of the evidence was true, [some?] one of the defendants had something to do with the case. Don't know that I ever expressed such an impression. Had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the newspaper reports of the testimony." The juror was excused on the challenge of the state, the defense protesting, having first shown that he thought he would be an impartial juror.

R. H. Cornor of Lincoln had read part of the confession and the testimony; had formed an impression that the confession wasn't true, had probably formed an impression that the defendants might have had something to do with it; had no opinion at the present time and thought he was qualified to give the defendants a fair and impartial trial.

The state subjected this juror to rigorous examination, in the course of which it was developed that when he had read Monday's confession he didn't believe it; that he therefore had an opinion; that an internal revenue collector had once found an empty cigar box in his place with the stamp unbroken and that Captain Billingsley was United States commissioner.

Mr. Hall: "What did the United States commissioner do with you?"

The defense objected and the objection was sustained. After fully a half hour of quarrelsome examination, in which all of the attorneys joined the juror was excused. Judge Field replying to the objections of the defense that the witness had formed an opinion as to the truth or falsity of the opinion and was incapacitated.

Charles W. Mosner had formed an opinion and was excused without any searching investigation.

R. H. Oakley, ditto.

S. G. Kent slightly knew John Sheedy but neither of the accused; had no decided opinion; had got what might be called an impression from the testimony; had expressed no opinion except Mrs. Sheedy could not be convicted upon the confession; had read the confession and thought it improbable. He was excused.

J. W. Randall had formed no opinion that he knew of; never read the confession; had just glanced over the headings; knew John Sheedy but not the accused; had no opinion.

"Did you ever have a talk with one J. Johnston about the case?"
"I may have had."
"And didn't you give him your opinion of the connection of these defendants with the case?"
"I may have."
"Have you that opinion still?"
"I don't know that I have."

The juror further stated he didn't believe some of the evidence he had read and was excused, the defense excepting.

Willis H. Ivers had formed an opinion and was not qualified to render a fair and impartial verdict.

J. M. Bell had formed opinions from what he had read, first one way and then another; was not opposed to capital punishment on positive and convincing evidence; had probably expressed opinions. He was excused.

Andrew Cox was an Irishman who had read the confession and when the state challenged him the defense generously agreed with them.

Fred Kent, a Lincoln carpenter, had read the confession and was excused for entertaining an opinion.

Joseph W. Fay , in the grocery business at Eleven and O had read and heard enough to form an opinion and was not wanted.

J. C. Pentzer, a teacher in the public schools, professed that he had an opinion and acted as if he pined for a grasp at the birch once more, wherefore he was excused.

Thomas Sewell mildly admitted that he had an opinion and was asked no further questions.

E. B. Fancher based an opinion on newspaper reports and goot away on the strength of it.

John Sturm was a Prussian who had not been able to [skirmish?] up an opinion while driving his dray; had read some about the case and didn't "look much over dat business," was not opposed to the death penalty, and it would make no difference to him whether the accused was man or woman, white or black. He had read the confession and formed no opinion as to whether it was true or false; had read the testimony of witnesses before the coroner, but had formed no opinion as to whether it were true or false.

"Now, Mr. Sturm, isn't it a fact that you have been in Gus Sanders' saloon and talked with him about the case?" inquired Mr. Stearns.

"What?"
"Haven't you talked with Gus Sanders about this case?"
"I don't know Gus Sanders."
"Haven't you been in his saloon talking about it?"
"No, sir; I don't go in saloons"
"When did you quit?"
"When did you see me in one? You are mistaken in the man."

The defense was evidently afraid of the juror and exerted every effort to fasten an opinion upon him, but failed, and the the challenge of the defense was overruled.

He was immediately unseated, however, by the twenty-eighth challenge of the defense.

H. A. Adams, a carpenter, knew the late John Sheedy slightly. He thought he had formed an opinion.

"On the fact that the man was killed and the parties accused, are the most likely to have done it."

His name was Dennis.
J. B. McDill had expressed an opinion on what he had read, had no conscientious scruples against hanging even a woman. He was excused because he had served his county as a juror in November.

Emsley Kearn was not very confident of his possession of an opinion, but thought he had one which it would take evidence to remove. He was excused.

James M. Bronson, a carpenter, had no opinion, although he had not read Monday's interesting narrative. Would refuse to return a verdict calling for the infliction of the death penalty.

Minor Bacon, a stenographer at Plummer, Perry, & Co's didn't remember having expressed any opinion, and didn't know that he had any with him; had no srcuples against the death penalty for man or woman; had read a portion of the confession but didn't form any opinion as to the truth or falsity; could presume defendants to be innocent until they were proven guilt beyond any reasonable doubt; had partially formed an opinion as to whether or not the defendants entered in a conspiracy that resulted in John Sheedy's death. After a vigorous corssfire wherein the young man bore up in an excedingly creditable manner, the court interposed and said there were reasons why this juror should be excused as he was in the employ of Mr. Fitzgerald.

E. D. Harris, a teacher in Cotner university, had partially made up his mind at the time of the murder; but it had grown rusty, thought it might take some evidence to remove it. He was excused.

Austin Humphrey was called.
"Are you a democrat?" asked Mr. Lambertson.
"Yes, sir."
"We pass," said Mr. Lambertson.
"And past sixty years of age?" queried Mr. Strode.
"No, sir."
"Have you formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused?"
"Yes, sir."
This was sufficient and Mr. Humphrey was permitted to retire.

Judge Field announced an adjournment until 2 p. m.

The Afternoon Session.

At 2:15 the inquisition was resumed before a small audience, and the incompetent men summoned were summsrily disposed of.

George A. Hendry was acquainted with John Sheedy and was not opposed to capital punishment; had no bias or prejudice for or against the accused and thought he could hardly render an impartial verdict and was excused.

J. T. Higgins of Midway addition, a stock buyer, had no vigorous scruples against the death penalty; had lived in Cass county and knew Mr. Strode there; had had business relations with him, but didn't remember what it was; had read all the papers and had formed a sort of an opinion, but thought he could the defendants a fair trial. He was excused.

J. A. Baker, a dairyman living northwest of the city, knew John Sheedy and had read the confession of Monday; had also a sort of a skim-milk opinion, wherefore he was excused.

William Burch, a barber, said he was formerly from David City.

Mr. Hall- Have you read the confession of Monday McFarland?

"No, sir; I'm a man who don't read who don't read any."
"Can you read?"
"No, sir."
"Have you talked any about the case?"
"Yes, sir"
Had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Thought every man in the state had an opinion as he had traveled 300 miles west and had heard opinions expressed on the subject, He was excused.

Joe Carter was the first colored man called. He had heard Monday's confession read as well as some of the testimony. He had an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused and didn't think he could render a fair and impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence.

"We pass the juror," promptly exclaimed the state.

"We pass him."as promptly replied the defense. He filled the panel.

Thomas L. Phillips was let out by the twenty-ninth challenge of the defense.

Ed Franklin had read the confession and had an opinion. He was excused.

J. C. Bahls of the Capital City grocery knew John Sheedy and Mrs. Sheedy slightly. He had conscientious scruples against the death penalty, and didn't think he would like to return a verdict entailing it. He had read Monday's confession and founded an opinion thereon. He was excused.

J. J. Chambers of Bennett had read some about the case but had formed no opinion; had read some of the evidence taken at the former hearings, but didn't remember what it was. Thought he could render a fair and impartial verdict if he had to serve. He was opposed to capital punishment and thought he would want direct evidence ere he could convict. In spite of this the defense challenged him, but the court overruled the challenge. After he was ordered to the jury box he was excused by the court because he was subject to palpitation of the heart.

Thomas Coffield was excused for some spinal disaffection.

"Suppose," said the court, "you would have to sit for six or eight weeks? How would that do?"
"It wouldn't do at all."
"Well say two or three weeks."
"That wouldn't do either."
"Well you may go."

Turning towards the jury box the court remarked:
"I don't want to discourage the jury, but wish to take every precaution."

J. K. Trout was excused because of his age.

Albert L. Scott had read Monday's story and had an opinion which secured his release.

Ed Young of Panama precinct thought he could give the defendants a fair deal, as he was without bias, and had no opinions, although he had read the confession of Monday and the testimony. Didn't even form any opinion as to whether the statements were true or false. Juror said he was an independent republican; had no scruples against the death penalty. He could presume the defendants innocent. He was passed, and was assigned a seat in the jury box in spite of his protest.

Captain Billingsley arose at this point and said:

"Your honor, there are only three peremptory challenges left, and counsel for Monday McFarland ask leave to retire for a few minutes to confer with their client."

It was granted and Messrs. Billingsley and Philpott and Monday retired to the judges' chamber, evidently to consult as to the advisability of removing the colored man, Joe Carter.

Meantime Juror Hartshorn sneaked up to the court and [?] an appeal for liberty, as he was recovering from la grippe. He was excused.

When Monday and his attorneys returned into court, Phillip Opp was called. He resided at Davey hardware merchant. He had formed a cast iron opinion and had read Monday's confession and the testimony as published. That opinion was still circulating through his grey matter tank and the court let him out.

AND STILL NO SHEEDY JURY

A PROTEST AGAINST OUTSIDE INTERFERENCE.

The Prosecution Thinks That Undue Influences Are at Work to Seal the Darkey's Lips.

Jon Carter, the Colored Juror, is Spotted and Monday McFarland Weeps- Two Challenges Remaining and 544 Men Examined.

Sixth Day of the Great Trial.
There was a decreased attendance in the court room yesterday morning when order was summoned out of mild confusion by the stern, solemn "hear ye" of of Deputy-Sheriff Hoagland. The summons had not [cooled?] [are?] Attorney Philpott of Monday McFarland's counsel advanced to the court's [?] and addressed the ever courteous tribunal on a question of privilege, half in inquiry and half in deprecation. He wished to inquire whether or not an interview between his client and a witness was not to be permitted in the court room. He said that on the previous evening W. W. Carder had had a conference with McFarland in the room and that the attorneys for the state had made a roar about it. He had also wished to permit McFarland's wife to have a secret interview with him in the jail, but this had been denied unless the jailor could be present and hear it. The proposed conference was to be about family matters, and the parties, while willing to talk about them in his presence, did not want to allow the jailor to hear it. He had made the request on Thursday, and it had been denied. He thought it a right to which the prisoner was entitled and he wanted him confirmed in it.

The court said he saw no reason why Monday should not be allowed to converse with his witnesses.

Mr. Hall contended that he did not deem it proper for Mr. Carder, who he said, was evidently in the pay of the defense, to be permitted to hold secret conference with the prisoner, as he had done during the previous evening. He said that the whispered conference had begun before the court had left the room, but continued for some time thereafter.

The court said he saw no good reason for denying Monday's right to converse with the witnesses, even though the latter was in the employ of the defense.

But Mr. Hall and Mr. Lambertson continued to protest that Mr. Carder was not employed in the capacity of counsel, and Colonel Philpott protested that he was not in the employ of the defense.

Sheriff McClay said to the court that he would like a rule to guide him as to who should be permitted to confer with Monday, and the court established it by giving directions that hereafter conferences with the dusky prisoner would be permitted only upon the court's order. This apparently terminated the outward evidences of a great deal of inward feeling.

The objections of the state were aroused by the fact that after the adjournment of court Friday evening W. W. Carder and Monday McFarland had sat with their heads very close together for some time engaged in a conversation of great apparent secrecy. Only four or five feet away sat the [impertumble?] and ever vigilant Jim Malone, but Colonel Philpott sat between him and the parties conferring, guarding the [secresy?] of the whispered discourse with cat like vigilance.

The attorneys for the state are convinced that Monday McFarland is nearing the point where he is likely to make interesting revelations, if only left alone, but that there is a constant pressure being brought to hear upon him to keep him from so doing. They express the conviction that Mr. Carder's conference was in [?] with that evident desire to seal the darkey's lips. They think that this [?] is even being exerted upon him while in the county jail, chiefly in behalf of Mrs. Sheedy. They say that Jailor Langden, is very partial to the cause of Mrs. Sheedy, and has gone so far as to express the conviction that it is "an outrage" to keep her imprisoned on the charge. They say that the safeguard of such influences may throw around the prisoners are not calculated to further the ends of justice, and they have complained to Sheriff McClay of Langdon's attitude in the matter. It was asserted that they had asked the sheriff to remove Mr. Langdon, but Mr. McClay denies that assertion. He says that if it can be shown that Jailor Langdon has done one thing wrong in connection with the case, he will remove him, but none has been reported to him. He also said that the story of Langdon's partiality toward the cause of his feminine ward has been much exaggerated.

However these alleged facts may be, it is certain that the attorneys for the state are not satisfied in the matter. They even claim that there has been an efforton foot to have Mrs. Sheedy and Monday permitted to hold a conference in the jail by themselves.

It is also evident that the defense fears Monday, and that the state's advocates have hopes that he will break down.

Hence it was that when Monday was noticed crying for some time just before court adjourned last evening, the attorneys for the prosecution were more that ever convinced that their hopes were to be realized, but Monday's attorneys explained that his mental depression was due to the receipt of news from Kansas that his mother would be unable to come up to the trial.

Throughout the day Mrs. Sheedy was more actively interested in the proceedings around her than at any time heretofore. She had laid aside the look of settled melancholy that has hitherto been her chief characteristic, and yesterday [?] an active interest in the selection of the jury, evidenced by her whispering to those around her concerning the juror and their examinations. She [?] asked her attorneys that one juror with whom she was favorably impressed be allowed to remain on the jury, but her counsel thought otherwise and he was excused.

When the colored juror was given a seat in the panel it was noticed by everone [?] Mrs. Sheedy did some very vigorous whispering, and finally caught the ear of her uncle. He in turn caught Mr. Strode and the two retired from the room together. Soon after their return, it was what Captain Billingsley asked permission to return to consult with his client. That conference results in the release of Joe Carter, and soon afterwards it was noticed that Monday McFarland was in tears. The explanation of his tears which seems most plausible to the counsel for the prosecturion and their assisting officers, as well as to some of the court officials, is that the release of that darkey from the jury had its meaning for even the obtuse understanding of Monday McFarland. In his voir dire examination Joe Carter had professed to have an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the parties, but the defense had accepted him. It is thought that he would be not so likely to convict Monday and acquit Mrs. Sheedy as would a white man, and this is the state's idea of the motive for his dismissal.

With each day's work in securing the jury the interest intensifies and some mighty stirring scenes may be anticipated in that court room ere this great legal battle is brought to an end.

The attendance throughout the entire day was not so great as it has been heretofore, and it is apparent that the public is awaiting the completion of the jury, which will probably be effected before the noon hour to-morrow.

The jurors who were held in the box to spend the Sabbath were James Van Campen, George Albrecht, J. C. Jensen, A. B. Norton, John H. Hart, A. W. Widdifield, Jacob Croy, Albert Ward, Henry L. Willis, El Young and John Robertson. They are not the most inteligent looking body by any means that could have been selected, and it is suspected that the state is not fully satisfied with it, but it has but one challenge retaining. The jury is strictly guarded, and the members are forbidden to converse about the case.

It is hinted that some of the jurors have expressed opinions in relation to this case, and in view of their oath that they have not so done, it is believed that the attorneys for the state will not neglect an opportunity to go after them for perjury.

Mrs. Morgan, the California sister of Mrs. Sheedy, was noticed to be on the anxious seat yesterday, and inquiry developed the fact that she was very earnestly engaged in an endeavor to keep her alleged picture out of local pictorial papers. It is said that she is very sensitive in regard to the matter, which explains her apprehensions, as she is a handsome woman, and were an accurate picture of her given she need have no scruples.

The first juror who responded to the call of the list was Charles Grady of Raymond, a farmer, who had formed and expressed an opinion and still had it. He was challenged by the defense and excused.

Thomas L. Phillips of Thirteenth and W streets, a carpenter, had never read very much about it, for he never believed very much in "readin' murder cases"; had no opinion and no scruples against the death penaly on circumstantial evidence, not even in case of a woman. Juror knew Mr. Hall slightly and Mr. Snell by sight.

Billingsley: "What is your politics, Mr. Phillips?"

"Well, independent."
"Then you voted for Mr. Snell, did you?"

Ere the witness could answer the state objected to the question as improper and it was withdrawn.

"Have you any bias or prejudice against colored people?"

"I don't see why I should have. They are human beings the same as ourselves."

Juror thought he would be a model of fairness and impartiality. He took his seat in the box.

The twenty-seventh challenge of the defense sent Warren Clark, the school teacher, away regretfully.

J. W. Billow of Oak precinct had an opinion and didn't think he could render an important verdict, having read all about the case. He was excused

M. L. Hiltner didn't think he could render a fair and impartial opinion and therefore was not wanted.

Henry L. Willis had no opinion; was in charge of the freight house of the Union Pacific; had no scruples against the death penalty, even in case of a woman, and thought he could render a fair and impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence. Had read all the papers, he guessed, including the confession; formed no opinion because I didn't take any stock in it. Juror didn't rely much on the newspapers; didn't have any prejudice against a negro; was a democrat in politics; knew John Sheedy by sight, but never spoke to him. Never spoke to any of the attorneys for the state.

"Well, your'e in luck," said Mr. Billingsley.
"You bet I believe you."
The juror was accepted and took a seat in the box.

The state's fifth challenge tackled H. H. Shatzell so vigorously that he grabbed his hat and made a bee line for the door, almost forgetting to settle with the clerk.

F. F. Mockett was excused because he was an attorney.

Joseph C. McBride had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, and thought he could render a fair and impartial opinion. Had discussed the case a great many times, but never had any impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

"I might have formed an impression that, if what I read of the evidence was true, [some?] one of the defendants had something to do with the case. Don't know that I ever expressed such an impression. Had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the newspaper reports of the testimony." The juror was excused on the challenge of the state, the defense protesting, having first shown that he thought he would be an impartial juror.

R. H. Cornor of Lincoln had read part of the confession and the testimony; had formed an impression that the confession wasn't true, had probably formed an impression that the defendants might have had something to do with it; had no opinion at the present time and thought he was qualified to give the defendants a fair and impartial trial.

The state subjected this juror to rigorous examination, in the course of which it was developed that when he had read Monday's confession he didn't believe it; that he therefore had an opinion; that an internal revenue collector had once found an empty cigar box in his place with the stamp unbroken and that Captain Billingsley was United States commissioner.

Mr. Hall: "What did the United States commissioner do with you?"

The defense objected and the objection was sustained. After fully a half hour of quarrelsome examination, in which all of the attorneys joined the juror was excused. Judge Field replying to the objections of the defense that the witness had formed an opinion as to the truth or falsity of the opinion and was incapacitated.

Charles W. Mosner had formed an opinion and was excused without any searching investigation.

R. H. Oakley, ditto.

S. G. Kent slightly knew John Sheedy but neither of the accused; had no decided opinion; had got what might be called an impression from the testimony; had expressed no opinion except Mrs. Sheedy could not be convicted upon the confession; had read the confession and thought it improbable. He was excused.

J. W. Randall had formed no opinion that he knew of; never read the confession; had just glanced over the headings; knew John Sheedy but not the accused; had no opinion.

"Did you ever have a talk with one J. Johnston about the case?"
"I may have had."
"And didn't you give him your opinion of the connection of these defendants with the case?"
"I may have."
"Have you that opinion still?"
"I don't know that I have."

The juror further stated he didn't believe some of the evidence he had read and was excused, the defense excepting.

Willis H. Ivers had formed an opinion and was not qualified to render a fair and impartial verdict.

J. M. Bell had formed opinions from what he had read, first one way and then another; was not opposed to capital punishment on positive and convincing evidence; had probably expressed opinions. He was excused.

Andrew Cox was an Irishman who had read the confession and when the state challenged him the defense generously agreed with them.

Fred Kent, a Lincoln carpenter, had read the confession and was excused for entertaining an opinion.

Joseph W. Fay , in the grocery business at Eleven and O had read and heard enough to form an opinion and was not wanted.

J. C. Pentzer, a teacher in the public schools, professed that he had an opinion and acted as if he pined for a grasp at the birch once more, wherefore he was excused.

Thomas Sewell mildly admitted that he had an opinion and was asked no further questions.

E. B. Fancher based an opinion on newspaper reports and goot away on the strength of it.

John Sturm was a Prussian who had not been able to [skirmish?] up an opinion while driving his dray; had read some about the case and didn't "look much over dat business," was not opposed to the death penalty, and it would make no difference to him whether the accused was man or woman, white or black. He had read the confession and formed no opinion as to whether it was true or false; had read the testimony of witnesses before the coroner, but had formed no opinion as to whether it were true or false.

"Now, Mr. Sturm, isn't it a fact that you have been in Gus Sanders' saloon and talked with him about the case?" inquired Mr. Stearns.

"What?"
"Haven't you talked with Gus Sanders about this case?"
"I don't know Gus Sanders."
"Haven't you been in his saloon talking about it?"
"No, sir; I don't go in saloons"
"When did you quit?"
"When did you see me in one? You are mistaken in the man."

The defense was evidently afraid of the juror and exerted every effort to fasten an opinion upon him, but failed, and the the challenge of the defense was overruled.

He was immediately unseated, however, by the twenty-eighth challenge of the defense.

H. A. Adams, a carpenter, knew the late John Sheedy slightly. He thought he had formed an opinion.

"On the fact that the man was killed and the parties accused, are the most likely to have done it."

His name was Dennis.
J. B. McDill had expressed an opinion on what he had read, had no conscientious scruples against hanging even a woman. He was excused because he had served his county as a juror in November.

Emsley Kearn was not very confident of his possession of an opinion, but thought he had one which it would take evidence to remove. He was excused.

James M. Bronson, a carpenter, had no opinion, although he had not read Monday's interesting narrative. Would refuse to return a verdict calling for the infliction of the death penalty.

Minor Bacon, a stenographer at Plummer, Perry, & Co's didn't remember having expressed any opinion, and didn't know that he had any with him; had no srcuples against the death penalty for man or woman; had read a portion of the confession but didn't form any opinion as to the truth or falsity; could presume defendants to be innocent until they were proven guilt beyond any reasonable doubt; had partially formed an opinion as to whether or not the defendants entered in a conspiracy that resulted in John Sheedy's death. After a vigorous corssfire wherein the young man bore up in an excedingly creditable manner, the court interposed and said there were reasons why this juror should be excused as he was in the employ of Mr. Fitzgerald.

E. D. Harris, a teacher in Cotner university, had partially made up his mind at the time of the murder; but it had grown rusty, thought it might take some evidence to remove it. He was excused.

Austin Humphrey was called.
"Are you a democrat?" asked Mr. Lambertson.
"Yes, sir."
"We pass," said Mr. Lambertson.
"And past sixty years of age?" queried Mr. Strode.
"No, sir."
"Have you formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused?"
"Yes, sir."
This was sufficient and Mr. Humphrey was permitted to retire.

Judge Field announced an adjournment until 2 p. m.

The Afternoon Session.

At 2:15 the inquisition was resumed before a small audience, and the incompetent men summoned were summsrily disposed of.

George A. Hendry was acquainted with John Sheedy and was not opposed to capital punishment; had no bias or prejudice for or against the accused and thought he could hardly render an impartial verdict and was excused.

J. T. Higgins of Midway addition, a stock buyer, had no vigorous scruples against the death penalty; had lived in Cass county and knew Mr. Strode there; had had business relations with him, but didn't remember what it was; had read all the papers and had formed a sort of an opinion, but thought he could the defendants a fair trial. He was excused.

J. A. Baker, a dairyman living northwest of the city, knew John Sheedy and had read the confession of Monday; had also a sort of a skim-milk opinion, wherefore he was excused.

William Burch, a barber, said he was formerly from David City.

Mr. Hall- Have you read the confession of Monday McFarland?

"No, sir; I'm a man who don't read who don't read any."
"Can you read?"
"No, sir."
"Have you talked any about the case?"
"Yes, sir"
Had formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Thought every man in the state had an opinion as he had traveled 300 miles west and had heard opinions expressed on the subject, He was excused.

Joe Carter was the first colored man called. He had heard Monday's confession read as well as some of the testimony. He had an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused and didn't think he could render a fair and impartial verdict upon the law and the evidence.

"We pass the juror," promptly exclaimed the state.

"We pass him."as promptly replied the defense. He filled the panel.

Thomas L. Phillips was let out by the twenty-ninth challenge of the defense.

Ed Franklin had read the confession and had an opinion. He was excused.

J. C. Bahls of the Capital City grocery knew John Sheedy and Mrs. Sheedy slightly. He had conscientious scruples against the death penalty, and didn't think he would like to return a verdict entailing it. He had read Monday's confession and founded an opinion thereon. He was excused.

J. J. Chambers of Bennett had read some about the case but had formed no opinion; had read some of the evidence taken at the former hearings, but didn't remember what it was. Thought he could render a fair and impartial verdict if he had to serve. He was opposed to capital punishment and thought he would want direct evidence ere he could convict. In spite of this the defense challenged him, but the court overruled the challenge. After he was ordered to the jury box he was excused by the court because he was subject to palpitation of the heart.