201

JURORS WHO WILL THINK.

They Are Not Wanted for the Sheedy Murder Trial.

OTHERS ARE RATHER HARD TO FIND.

No Prospects of Scouring a Jury This Week--Errors is the Law--Other State News.

LINCOLN, Neb., May 7.--[Special Telegram to THE BEE.]--The fourth day of the Sheedy murder case has been a repetition of the other days--the examination of jurors as to their competency. The few men left on the first panel of 150 jurors confessed to having rallied with the evidence or the alleged [confusion?] of Monday McFarland. This had established in their minds an opinion which would require considerable evidence to remove; and they were accordingly challenged and let out.

Following the exhaustion of the first special panel the clerk began calling the names of those citizens who had been summoned on the second panel. Thereupon Strode jumped out and entered a lengthy protest against the manner in which the venire had been drawn. He insisted that the county commissioners had not chosen the veniremen in the proportion established by law, in that a larger number were drawn from some precincts and a less number from others than provided by the statute. He also objected to the second special panels because the members had been summoned by registered letter. Both objections were overruled and exceptions noted. At this point Judge Field remarked, as there was slight prospect of completing the jury panel before Saturday morning, that all witnesses summoned to appear at bar would be excused from further attendance until that time.

The candor and rugged honesty of a man named Taylor brought to the stand claims admiration. He state that he had formed a decided opinion, the result of reading the newspaper and canvassing the crime with neighbors.

"Could you," asked Mr. Hall, who was examining him, "notwithstanding the opinion render an impartial verdict, after bearing the verdict?"

"I might."

"Are you sure?"

"I can't say. At present I believe both defendants guilty and it would require evidence to convince me to the contrary."

Mrs. Sheedy whose bearing had been of the confident order, dropped her eyes and a shade of annoyance passed over her fact. The witness was excused. At 3 o'clock this afternoon the defense had exercised fourteen and the defense seven peremptory challenges.

The delay in getting a satisfactory jury is largely due to the tangled condition of the existing law. Several sections thought to have been repeated by the last legislature are being found to have been overlooked and therefore are in force. The compiled statutes of Nebraska 1881 was revised in 1885 and when so revised contained the amendments made in 1885 and when so revised contained the amendments made in 1882, 1883, and 1885. In the revision of 1885 is found section 408, page 838. The statutes of the state were again compiled by Brown and Wheeler in 1889 and that compilation on page 951 contains section 669 L. Now both of these sections provide for causes of challenge to jurors. On the first day examination of jurors in the Sheedy murder came Judge Fred was governed by section 667 L in the revision of 1889, which by the mistake of compilers omitted section 486 of the revision of 1885, although in force Judge Field on the evening [?] the first day discovered this omission and finding both section in force, on the second day excused four jurors selected on the first day, who he found, on examination of their evidence, had founded their opinions on reading reports of testimony taken at the coroner's inquiry and on the preliminary examination. It seems that section 669 L does not diminish the [?] of challenge of jurors, but enlarges them, therefore it follows that many jurors who could qualify under either section cannot qualify when all the causes are inquired of under both sections. Hence the necessity to call into the jury panel so many jurors.